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

A complete solution only requires brute force computation.  In 100 years, we'll be off silicon, and computers will be using ion lattices for memory storage and the processors will make Houdini look like a Pong program ;).

Most computer "experts" today just keep assuming a processing power curve that keeps growing in line with the increases of the past 50+ years. 

"A hundred years from now sailing ships will be 3 times as fast as they are now and cannonballs will be 5 times as destructive..."

"No, a hundred years from now sailing ships will be completely obsolete and cannonballs will be in museums..."

A complete solution to the game, where each possible move is cataloged and evaluated as a win loss or draw, and where each position+eval takes up one bit of space, and where each bit could be stored in the size of an atom, the storage device would be:

A) Larger than the earth (assuming same density).
B) Larger than 10 suns (assuming same density).
C) Would contain more atoms than our galaxy.
D) Would contain more atoms than are estimated in the observable universe.

The answer may surprise you!

/\ Thanks Waffle, that last post clicked for me.

Yeah, I read the "10^123" guy already.  It does not matter one iota that a Chess game has that many variations, because the number of actual, viable moves that can be evaluated for "best play" is a very, very small slice of that number, and there are far more ways to evaluate and calculate without actually even checking, much less storing, every single possible move at a move-by-move level.  

I am not even sure where the storage argument comes from...even today chess computers routinely discard their calculations as they go...

E) Would contain more atoms than there would be in a multiverse on which one universe, the same size/density of the known universe was present for every two atoms in the known universe.

Yeah, it's that much more complex.

For Go, it's a multiverse with nine universes per every two atoms!

You can't know you've solved if you prune, sorry. You must evaluate the entire game tree,

You're right, it can probably be reduced by several orders of magnitude.  And by putting standard technology in a museum with cannon balls it can be reduced even more.  Unfortunately this is still a truly astronomical size.

And honestly, a weaker solution doesn't seem very earth shattering from a chess player's perspective.  We already have free engines running on an average lap top that can beat almost any GM (even all GMs depending on program, hardware, time control).

True. Otherwise every super computer or combination of super computers in existence would have solved chess already. The only entity that will solve chess is a higher form of consciousness I.E. "GOD"

Someone made the argument that chess can be solved, because, although there are more possible chess games than atoms, there are smaller particles than atoms.

This is ridiculous. Storing a chess position requires a lot more than one bit of memory(even assuming 1 electron=1 bit). Additionally, this is talking about the UNIVERSE. The Milky way is about 1/100000000000 of the matter in the universe. There is simply no way that chess will ever be solved(in any known part of the universe).

You can't know you've solved if you prune, sorry. You must evaluate the entire game tree,

Rubbish :).  I don't have to check every possible combination of playing cards in a hand of Texas Hold 'Em to eliminate every hand lower than a pair from consideration.  It's not like some random collection of cards will suddenly show itself to be a winner over a royal flush.  

"Maybe an eight and three and two instead of a nine and six and a jack?  Nope...still nothing".  

The same is true of Chess, though admittedly at a much more complex level.

And for the argument above me...we're still talking about completely different animals.  We're not talking about whether a computer will be able to store 10^123 combinations of moves at all.  We're talking about whether Chess is a White win or a draw with best play.  You do not need the former to determine the latter.

btickler, how do you know which are optimal, and which are not? Of course, you have to play through to checkmate. This means you must check every single possible game of chess, an amount of information which is impossible to store. 

Once you start marking unfinished games as won or lost, you cannot definitely be said to have "solved" chess. That would be an incomplete proof.

Edit: For instance, you could make the claim that when white has a king and a queen against black's king, white always wins.

This is a very reasonable claim. But the only way to prove it, is to check every possible combination. Because of the absurdity of such a task, a solution of chess can never exist fully, at any one point in time.

Thanks for proving my point :).

You can indeed make the claim that king and queen always wins over just a king, and you can indeed prove it without checking all combinations of moves (and it's already been proven ;)...).  You can even quantify the exact circumstances where this is not true (i.e. stalemates).

Even a true brute force calculation like finding new prime numbers does not go about it by checking every single possible combination.  It operates on square roots, eliminates all even numbers, all numbers ending in 5, etc. etc.

We should all hope to be on the spaceships that escape the sun's explosion.

This was true until about 2008, but you're several years out of date.  Today's best go programs are on the level of strong amateurs.  According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go#Recent_results , a program called Crazy Stone, given a 4-stone handicap, recently won against a 9-dan professional, though a 64-year-old one.  It's rated 5-dan on KGS.  I'd call that reasonably skilled.  Apparently another program is 6-dan on KGS.

Depends on your definition of "solving" where there does not seem to be a clear agreement here.

One thing is certain--with best play for both sides- chess is a draw.

Never!..because chess is a game played by humans...and humans cannot be solved...and humans cannot exhaust every possible variation in chess even with the aid of a computer

What is the definition of solve? The question doesn't quite make sense.

solved means making the best possible move in every possible position on the chess board....exhaust all variations with the best possible move each time....so suppose it must be a draw every game.

Wow, really? That seems unfathomable... no wonder it's easy to blunder so much. lol.

I'm with the school of who knows what the future holds. Generations before us would never have believed the sort of technologies/products we have today could/would ever be invented and working for society. With the continuous advancements of super computers I would say "almost anything is possible". 

Lol. I suppose I'm too bad to realize this evidence is anything more than speculation. It's very possible that chess with best play is a draw, and if I had to put my money on either of the three outcomes I would pick this one ; but it is no proof whatsoever.

I would like one GM quote (from say the last 20 years) saying "chess is a draw with no doubt possible" (not something like "there is a good chance chess is a draw"), or argumentation other than "everyone knows that".

On topic : yes, pruning can be done, but it does not reduce the things to analyse by much. Instead of having 10^123 position to analyse, you will have 10^120. Splendid progress, but not here yet, cap'ain.