Will computers ever solve chess?

For human matters, chess is already solved as no human player can beat the top engines. 

But even if chess get 100% solved there will still be about 10^50 possible lines, so we don't have to worry about it. 

that's a cool vid Vickalan 

7...Bc4 or 7...a4 avoid losing a piece.

.. Above my 'pay-grade', of expertise ..

https://www.quantamagazine.org/gil-kalais-argument-against-quantum-computers-20180207/

A reason to doubt the absoluteness of the author's position is that both IBM and Intel have achieved quantum computers with about 50 qubits recently, as reported last month in an article that draws attention to the same challenges, but provides reasons to be cautiously optimistic.

Two other key points in the article are that quantum computers should be quantified by their "quantum volume" which takes into account all the things contributing to processing power, including noise, not just the number of qubits, and that topological quantum computing may be the solution to the noise problem, because the states involved are inherently more stable and less vulnerable to noise (TQC is currently only a theoretical possibility).

I repeat, where will you store the moves? we would need an insanely large storage unit.

Thanks... also about your second point, the need to store every move is a fallacy. One example is that if White has a forced win with 1.e4, then you don't need to store (or even evaluate) games that start with 1.e3. But I do agree that something amazing is needed to solve chess. Either new game-solving algorithms or an innovation in game-analysis. Super-computers or distributed computer-systems with powerful processing capability will help too.

Sure if there is a forced win then maybe the moves could be stored?

However chess is not a forced win--it is a draw with best play.

Maybe, but not proven.

Proven to me--i am 99.99% sure that chess is a draw with best play.

The vast majority of grandmasters would agree with me.

I agree, but strength of belief never amounts to a proof (and you have just expressed a lack of certainty that you are right).

It's like it seems very unlikely that P=NP, but if you can prove either inequality or equality, there is (literally) a million dollars waiting for you.

If you don't store the side variations then you didn't actually solve it and everyone will just start playing a sideline.

Yes, there is no getting around dealing with EVERY branch the opponent may choose.

of course. i do not think anybody is 100% sure of anything. 99.99% is as close to 100% that i can get.

we might be part of a dream in someone's mind?

All this kind of stuff was sorted out hundreds of years ago. "I think therefore I am" and so on.

We cannot go back to basics, it simply takes too long.

‘I think therefore I am’ what? Nothing was answered a hundred or a a thousand years ago.

This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.

I know that, but the conclusion is irrational: the existence of thought does not prove the existence of a thinking entity. Descartes just assumed that, but didn’t really look into it.

"I think therefore I am" refers to individual sentience more than the physical laws of existence.  It clearly cannot be "sorted out" since 100 years ago...since Theoretical Physicists are still throwing out theories of the Universe being a Matrix-like simulation, and it cannot be proven one way or the other at present. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227126-neil-degrasse-tyson-says-its-very-likely-the-universe-is-a-simulation

The vast majority of grandmasters are just guessing. They guess that because of their personal experience with so many draws. But they make mistakes all the time, even the best computers make mistakes. No person and no machine is yet near perfection. If someone is sure chess is a draw with best play they are just as right as the person who is sure it's always a win for white with best play. Neither one knows, but both can be sure.