Will computers ever solve chess?

There is nothing on this forum that substantiates the argument that chess will never be solved (not even within a human lifetime). Also not in academic or scholarly papers. Also not in any published work from a university or respected institution. This is despite the fact that chess is the most studied game in history.

Your usual absurd "well God hasn't been *disproven*" argument.  Burden of proof is on your side.  There's no published works stating that spiral galaxies with black holes in the center are not cosmic toilets for a supreme race of beings, in spite of all the massive research into and theories published about black holes...I guess we should look for that discovery coming up, too? 

Your magic supposition methodology has already been debunked.

a fake on the net says chess has been solved by a programmer and some of his friends: have you ever met anyone of these guys?

Not correct. Mathematical propositions aren't true until disproven. It's the other way around.

Yes, chess has a finite number of moves. Even if a piece is moved back and forth with no purpose, there are draw rules for repetition, and the 50 move draw rule if there are no captures or pawn advancements.

So chess is finite. From the total number of games, a very small ratio have perfect play. Some of these have less than the average number of moves. It's the very short games with perfect play that lend themselves to mathematical analysis which in theory can be used to solve chess.

Even simpler is the observation that there are finite number of possible positions, even without thinking about issues of the starting pieces and the possibilities for queening. A crude upper bound on the number of positions is 13^64 (6 possible white pieces + 6 possible black pieces + empty square = 13). There is a relatively minor correction for legality of castling and possibility of e.p. which I'll ignore.

Of course this is orders of magnitude too high for legal positions, as both sides are limited to 16 pieces and many other constraints. This places an upper bound on the complexity of forming a tablebase for chess (but an impractically high one).

Unfortunately, even when reduced a fair bit (on a log scale) this is a huge number, far more than the number of atoms in the Earth.

no, sorry, but it's not like that. as long as a piece can redo the same moves several times, and not always meaningless, enter the infinity scale. it is elementary algebra: do you have a periodic number? among other things, it is a scale of the infinite, the only one that we humans can count on. the finite number of moves is determined exclusively by the Fide regulations. 

I, however, will continue to look for those types that have solved chess: I will try to get a copy of the software. 

I'm sorry, but it's not like that. always at the level of algebra, and you can see it by trying the many variations to the finite number of play on the chessboard - including chekeers - the advantage is always black, because it is he who acts on the opponent's movement: the white can only hope to equalize .

Another topic that a group of people like bumping into the most recent window.

Bump.

You're making a statement, but it's completely baseless...as I think you know very well.  This topic is asking whether computers will solve chess, which is currently not possible.  The only "proposition", therefore, is whether this status will change, and at what time.  This leaves the burden of proof squarely on you. 

Maybe you'd care to claim a cure for cancer will emerge in the next 5 years, post no supporting evidence or even reasonable numbers, and then claim the burden of proof is on those who say you are full of crap?  That's exactly what you are doing here.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Please stop being deliberately obtuse.

There is no respected mathematician or game-theorist in the world who has said that chess cannot be solved. You are all by yourself on this, and have produced nothing to support your viewpoint. Sorry.😐

"Currently not achieved" would be better language.

Elroch - "Unfortunately, even when reduced a fair bit (on a log scale) this is a huge number, far more than the number of atoms in the Earth."

I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are more potential chess positions than atoms in the observable universe... by a factor of a googol... yeah, a googol chess positions for every atom. I find it hard to believe, but I have absolutely no idea how to calculate if it's true or not.

Still, we're talking a finite number here, and it's a matter of time before a machine doesn't consider it an impossibly large number to process. There was a time it would've taken a machine longer than a human to count to ten. Now they can count to billions in a second (probably)... numbers that we could never count to (even though we obviously know how to) are well within the reach of machines, and they're going to get faster as we evolve.

So yeah, chess will be solved one day. It will probably kill online chess, but it will never kill the otb game because there will never be a human that can memorise a googol+ sized tablebase.

And the only quetion for me is... how will computers solve chess? Brute force? Or algebra?

Actually you are misremembering: it was probably a fact about the number of distinct chess games.

There are about 10^80 atoms in the observable Universe, which is a number between the number of chess positions and the number of chess games. [I essentially proved the first of these facts above with my crude bound].

You could be right. It's funny though because I never thought that it was particularly surprising that there are so many chess positions, though it does seem like a small number of atoms...