Will computers ever solve chess?

Do the top chess engines always choose 1.e4 or 1.d4 when they cannot use a book to help them?

What makes them choose these moves? It is evaluation to a limited depth based on the evaluation function (a composite of individual material and positional factors) that programmers have given the engine, not whether the moves lead to a win, loss or draw. So how do we know the evaluation function is the best, and does it matter if it is suboptimal?

Why not always 1.e4 or always 1.d4?

It is a bit more tricky when you have two players rather than one. 

Lol.

The 19-Knights Position is just standard opening theory. :D

HulkyHulk Our Lord and Saviour in Whom we trust

He demolished engines

Nuff said.

16 pawns on the board (plus 4 knights)= 20 possible knights. :)

just play 3.nxe5!!

People may find these interesting (topic is computational complexity)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX40hbAHx3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moPtwq_cVH8

What would a painter do if you could just click a button and see the perfect painting.

Chess is an art but when solved it loses some of its beauty

I don't know genius. I guess no one would paint.

Ahahahahaha

Hahahaha

A camera cannot create it can only capture some of the beauty that is already created

Surprisingly, artificial intelligence can create art of high quality (based on human judgement). This example is a 3D-printed original in the style of Rembrant (the AI engine learnt his style by analysing all 346 of Rembrant's actual paintings).

A video about the Rembrandt...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuygOYZ1Ngo

It doesn't appear to me like anything much more sophisticated than taking an average of a select set of existing Rembrandt portraits was done here. The 3D aspect was just another variable, like colour. The video and website didn't go into detail, so it's hard to say for sure.

You are right that it is not pure AI.  But it was a lot more sophisticated than that. Averaging would not give good results at all.

There are several aspects of the process that were done by humans which could in principle be done by a future AI. The grand objective would be for the AI to generate random paintings in the style of Rembrant given only the data of his paintings and a general purpose AI. But this may be too ambitious because the data is very small. While it is feasible for a human forger, a forger has access to vast amounts of other data about other paintings and especially about the real world that is being represented, so an AI might require these too.

I am thinking of it by analogy with something I have more detailed understanding of, recurrent neural networks that learn to generate text in the style of a particular person. This type of system can be based on either words or letters as the codons.

In this case it is even more complex, but one aspect is that it has many nested levels. The algorithms learn about the brush strokes used by rembrant by considering the types of commonality of every tiny patch in every painting, rather like a simpler net learns to read handwriting by identifying letters. It surely learns about sets of larger features that occur in different paintings and generalises from them, and must at some time learn about the relationship of features on a face and the other relationships of objects in a portrait (eg the hat). But I haven't delved into the details. Doubtless there are papers on the subject. Your video explains that people were involved a lot in the definition of the features used by the AI. These days, people try to do as little as possible of this, allowing the AI to find features. But this requires a lot of data.

A camera creates a picture. Some pictures are considered to have artistic value. Some photographers are well known for the artistic pictures they take with their cameras.

Do you reckon this snapshot of mine is artistic? Just reflecting natural beauty. 

Computers can't devise an "artistic" chess puzzle; computer-made puzzles involve putting the king in check as the first step. No imagination. 

A camera can capture beauty not create.Its the artist or something else that creates the environment so that the camera can take the picture.Saying a camera creates the picture is like saying a painting brush is the artist and not the painter or saying the pencil is an artist but not the poet

A lot of creative judgment is put into taking and (in the case of photography with film) developing pictures. The photographer can control the contrast, depth of field, vibrance, focus, etc of pictures at various stages in the process, from deciding the camera's settings before taking a picture to making decisions in the darkroom. And of course there's the question of arranging your shot: which perspective to take, what to include and exclude in the picture, at what exact moment to take the picture, etc.

Will computers ever solve chess?  Depends on your definition of "solve".