True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

Only Deep Thought could do it.

This silly idea (above) fits well with the Evolution and God existence threads.

If you IMAGINE the solution to Chess lies outside the limits of your vision (or the vision of engines), you will always have this silly position to fall back upon.  QED.

To infinity and beyond  ??  Georg Cantor is surely turning over in his grave.

I beg to differ, I'm not assuming (let alone positing) that such a winning idea exists, I'm merely highlighting the possibility that it might as a counterpoint to the assumption that it does not.  Simply saying that everything is trending towards a draw therefore it must be a draw is sloppy reasoning at best.

The relevant question -- is chess a DRAW regardless of color ??

The plausible answer is YES.

The Mathematical answer is -- probably NEVER to be answered.  Who cares ??

End of Story.

The probable answer is yes -- all answers are plausible, this is actually my exact point.

As to who cares?  Obviously the OP, and numerous other posters who've responded about an actual solution and not some crude facsimile based on intuition and best-guesses.

"Sloppy reasoning" is just a 2000 year old Platonist assertion in which you habitually hide. The implicit assumption is that mathematics is unassailable, that it's the be all and end all of human reasoning.

Sorry, but that's just bullshite.  It's neat trick using the assertion of absolutes.  Wake up and join the human conversation.  No one stands on Mount Olympus.  Yawn.

Let this thread go back to sleep for another 9 months, and we will all sleep better.  

I never said mathetmatics was unassailable, it's just on far firmer footing than intuition and best-guesses, whether by experts or not.  Just because you'd prefer a looser definition of "solved" doesn't mean that the mathematical definition isn't the one being discussed in this thread.

Your world is binary, (firm footing versus guesses ??) and your head rather pinpointed. Sorry to break the news to you.

Human conversation is NOT a battle of pinheaded definitions, however construed.

Chess won't be solved anytime soon, but "never" is an awfully long time.

One day we will be regarded as the "Ancients", and matters that presently mystify us will be taught in schools.

On that basis I'm forced to say "Maybe".

It's the question in the original post that is binary.  You can discuss possibilities and proabilities all you want, it just doesn't address the question.

Yawn. Another "what solving means" argument.

Actually we are not that far away from perfect play if "perfect play" means both sides do not make even one mistake which would change the result of the game.

Lots of perfect games have already been played. [I know I will catch hell for saying so but it is the truth]

Yes, we're not that far away from any number of things if we change their definitions.

You cannot (and do not) know whether a mistake has been made or not in any of the games you have in mind.

The Knight's Tour is a completely different problem, you can't simply extrapolate from it to the game of chess.  Why not just say that since Tic Tac Toe is solved to be a draw that chess must also be?

Some people prefer to talk colloquially while some try to be rigerous.

The only annoying thing I see is some aren't seeing the difference.

The wise learn that there are many definitions of words.  Some words are in another language, and some languages you can just make up!

Made up languages.

The key to being wise.

Colloquially speaking there is no difference.  Rigorously speaking there is.

Then I suppose I can't blame them!

Man, you are really are on a roll today, spouting a bunch of technological pronouncements without a lick of understanding, and in multiple threads.

Tablebases, as they sit today as brute force calculations that do not prune anything, are definitely not the key to solving chess...not within our lifetimes nor in any foreseeable timeframe at all.  We're working on 8 piece tablebases now.  Do you have any conception what it would take to produce the 32 piece tablebase that would solve chess?  Maybe you should read the 42 page thread ;)...

Maybe if people around the world gave up CPU cycles ala the SETI project, we could manage to eventually get to a 9 move tablebase.  The idea of an exhaustive 32 move tablebase is beyond absurd.  As people love to point out, the entire Universe, dark matter included, is not nearly large enough to store that tablebase.

If the computer can beat the human, now, at any time, anywhere, and any game, is chess "solved"?