Will computers ever solve chess?

I think a good computer can beat a human probably every time, so on that level it is solved. Computer versus computer would interesting to watch if it was timed to about 10 minutes. Something would have to give and there would be some blunders, even by computers maybe.  

.. A-h, S-o .. So, the concept, of 'learning-from-scratch'; And, achieving 'mastery'; Goes beyond, mere, board games !  o:

Deep Mind has achieved something really awesome. The best part is that from scratch it discovered many of the joseki ("opening book") moves that human go players have decided are best and later it started to prefer some lines that humans had not yet concluded were good!

.. I confess, to hardly knowing Anything ; Re. the 'E-sports' game, 'StarCraft'.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609242/humans-are-still-better-than-ai-at-starcraftfor-now/

The reason I thought that 10 minutes for two computers to play is because if you give them half a day for a move, besides being very boring, is that they will probably end up in a draw. With ten minutes the computer has time working against it and has to figure out the best move and 'worry' about time constraints, which might make things more interesting for the viewer.   

George Soros is smart.

That is a very odd thought, since there is very little similarity between them.

.. I think, it's been established, that we All have 'alter-egos'! .. And I refuse, to further incriminate myself.  o:  ..{hint - try, 'Sinful' nature, amongst, the 'born again'!}

I'm in two minds about that.

The simple way to get a computer to solve chess would be to play itself and record the games. The computer would play a game moving each piece until it had used every combination. After awhile it would contain every possible move and every game. 

There is a bit of similarity in that to Alpha Go Zero, which became comfortably the best go player in the world entirely by playing itself.

.. There Is, a 'math'- related, connection here ; With, an odd twist, as you'll see !

https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathematics/researchers-work-out-how-to-break-the-bookmakers

.. Also, of some, {admittedly arcane}, interest ; Is, somehow determining, if there are certain 'forced' losing lines-of-play, in 'chess-960' ; That makes it, a 'Less fair' opening-segment, game concept ; Than conventional chess {!?}

I was surprised to find it was just a bog standard arbitrage based on what a sensible person would describe as errors in the odds.

The reaction of the bookies stinks. But you would not find this sort of problem on a betting exchange like Betfair, where "the house" makes their money from the winners, and likes them to do well.

Arbitrage opportunities generally occur between different bookies, so that if you can find the one that is offering the best odds on each of the available bets, the combination of them may be successful. A very nasty fact is that sometimes, they have been known to simply not pay up, so people have invested a substantial amount in an entirely valid arbitrage made of several bets, and the provider of the only successful one just doesn't honor the agreement. They can get away with that in some legislations, including the UK, I hear, as bets cannot be enforced in law (if I recall correctly).

The simple way to seem competent would be to read some of the 180+ pages of the thread before tossing out the first thing that pops into your head as a solution.

"The simple way to flip a coin would be toss it in the air, catch it, and then see what the result was...I don't know if anybody has thought of this elegant solution in the 3500+ posts put forth so far...while I am here, did you know you can toast a piece of bread by putting it in a toaster and then pushing down the handle (just FYI)?"

This statements covers every post you've ever made on this forum.  If anyone has run rampant here, we all know know who that is.  You treat this thread like your personal living room on chess.com.

Shoo.  Run along and play, and let the adults speak.  Nattering to yourself in the corner about Trump et al is annoying, but we've learned to ignore it for the most part.  That does not mean you have any particular weight or say here beyond your actual words, which are usually gibberish. 

"Fresh ideas could provide new direction."

You, my ADHD-addled friend, do not need any new directions...you already can't handle what you've got.

...surely you can hold something in your short term memory for longer than a week?  If not, I suppose, that certainly would explain a lot about your posts and your mental state in general.

Think more, type less.  You'll be a better man for it.

 And we will all rejoice.    

Came here expecting to find s23bog had solved chess, but I was disappointed. 

Concerning temperatures, a very fundamental fact from statistical physics is that the energy associated with 1 bit of information is proportional to the temperature. While there may be some relationship to behaviour of quantum computers, I heard that a qubit was stored for a remarkable 39 minutes at room temperature in 2013.