Will computers ever solve chess?

That game isn't perfect. It's possible one side had a win, but they only got a draw. But if it was a draw, then the game if played perfectly would have gone like this:

1. draw offered...draw agreed.

Players shake hands.

 You’re not listening: it may turn out that 1. b3 is stronger than 1. e4, if only because it leads to a forced win in 55.000 moves, whereas 1. e4 loses in a forced-win sequence of only 27.000 moves...

  You are only speculating that 1. e4 is the strongest opening move, or 1...e5 is stronger than 1...c5. To be perfect, a move must be absolutely the strongest in any given position, not just a strong one, but the strongest, all things considered.

  It is a well-known fact that computers have a hard time understanding openings, the first few moves, since they see no strong argument in opening in the way humans got used to do it: it’s just a matter of habit, but computers, left to their own devices, find it hard to pick a move in the very beginning. Who knows in the future? 

 Untill all the permutations are exhausted, there are no perfect games.

I am NOT speculating that 1. e4 is the strongest move. It is an equal move to 1. c4 or 1. d4 or 1. Nf3 and several other first moves as they all lead to a draw with best play on each side.

There are trillions of positions where there are several moves which are equal as they all lead to the same result for both sides [assuming perfect play for both sides]

We do not need to have all permutations exhausted to know what is a perfect game. Chess is a draw with best play by both sides--there are trillions of ways to play a chess game where both sides make no errors [and thus the game ends in a draw]

We believe you, @Ponz, even if those PGN games (above) don't load into the thread.

Thanks again for your many contributions to the site.

And, forget about the many, many bot and troll comments above.    

K vs K +N is a draw

K vs K + B is a draw

and  other many piece's assortment lead to a draw in many and many position.

Can I assume that in order to draw is needed less than equality ?

And so, to draw is needed a more less than perfect playing.

This is the way i "think chess is a draw" but it's also true that i don't have the truth and this is a fact. 

So tell me pls where's the lack of logic in this argument because i can't find it by myself.

That game isn't perfect or solved because black has options to move. In your example if both sides played with no mistakes (that we know of yet) until stalemate or not enough pieces left then it could be perfect. But that has never happened. You are just guessing that a draw is a perfect game but you dont know that. You are assuming. But until you know all the continuations in your example how do you know if the game is a draw on move 3? If it is a "perfect" game and solved then vickalans example is also the solution to chess. Or the game 1. Black resigns would also be a perfect game. Just because you declare a random game a draw after a few moves doesn't mean we have found the solution to chess or the perfect game. If it were that easy we would all be equal to the world champion by simply declaring a draw at move one.

I understand. An explanation that is much easier to understand is as follows:

There is a socialist utopia out there. Anything other notion is just a belief to be ridiculed if not castigated. We must "progress" towards this perfection. We know we are there when the enlightened tell us. Any criticism of a time period along the way is explained by 'havent tried hard enough'. The gurus are getting more and more better....they will succeed. Ultimately, there will be world peace, the end to hunger, happiness all the time, chess will be solved,etc. Its going to 'be like Christmas', only 1000 times better.

As I understand things,

The first move advantage is reckoned to be worth 1/3 of a pawn

However, to be sure of a win one side needs a full pawn advantage. So unless this 2/3rds pawn can be made up during a 'perfect' game then the result will inevitably be a draw as neither side can gain sufficient advantage to win.

1) Does either side have a forced win?

2) Lots of games end with a 3 point advantage for one side, and no win can be forced.  K+B versus K, for example.

3) The solution is not likely computable anytime soon, regardless of hardware and software.

4) Most people have no idea of the math (or storage) involved in "the solution."

4000+ posts chasing our tails?  Onward...

  I agree that in the meantime we can only play the game the only way we know how. Just make sure we don’t take our beliefs to be facts. I was only stating a fact: one cannot call a move ‘perfect’ until all permutations are taken into consideration. That’s a long way from where we are and obviously we can’t hold our breath for that to happen. 

  But until that happens, don’t call a move perfect, unless it’s the only forced mate in a position. However, even that is irrelevant, because arriving at that position occurred because  many imperfect moves were played, so that diminishes the statute of ‘perfect’ of that last move,

  It’s like two beginners making countless blunders and the last move is a single forced-mate. Even though it’s perfect, the previous blunders on each side reduced its statute to ‘meaningless’. Not quite on the same level, but the moves played by the best GMs today could be considered repeated blunders, because each side continually misses a forced-mate sequence of, say, 50.000 moves! Different kind of blunders, but still blunders, for repeatedly it gives another chance to the opponent, instead of finishing him off in 50.000 moves with best defense!!

 There are many games that can end up in a draw. But you cannot call those games ‘perfect’ because the moves played in those games cannot be called perfect untill all the options are taken into consideration.

  1. e4 is not perfect if it loses by brute force with best play on both sides,, while at the same time 1. b3 wins by brute force with best play on both sides.

 Same thing for 1...e5, which may lose by brute force as opposed to 1...c5, or 3. Bb5 which may lose by force as opposed to 3. d4, for instance.

 We are not talking about 2 human idiots who decide to stop the game after 3 moves.

 But even then, you are assuming that the position is equal, for that’s what the current theory holds. But what if that position leads to a forced mate? Then those 2 idiots simply agreed to a draw in a won  position: that doesn’t make that a perfect game, but an imperfect one.

  Once again, how do you know that this position is not a forced win for either side? You don’t, yet you’re presenting a speculation as a fact. 

Sorry but i know the position i gave is a draw with optimum play for both sides [even if you do not know this]

You absolutely do not know that.  For several reasons. To know that you would have to have solved chess. To know that, you would have to have more information in your brain than all the worlds best chess playing computers combined. To know that you would have to know what "optimum" play is in all situations arising from the position you gave. So that means you would have to be either 1. the smartest person in the history of the world. 2. From the future where chess is solved. Or 3. God. I personally think you are none of those and instead you just believe chess is a draw with "perfect play". Which no one has ever seen.

  No, the only thing you know is that you are holding on to the belief that current theory is correct in assessing that position as being perfectly equal. But current theory cannot say that as a fact, but only through the small, limited prism of games played so far. A guess.

 Your error is to take that assessment of the current theory as your guiding judgment. 

 But the current theory can only guess about any position’s potential.

In actuality, nobody can say for sure  that 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 is not a forced win for either side.

You can pretend to know—without any logical reason—as you do, but the fact remains that nobody knows.

 You’re too attached to the actual theory to let go of the dogma. Learn the theory, but all means, but don’t make a guess into a fact just because you like that guess too much. It’s still a guess.

As good as Patriot’s points are, whose post I’m only reading now, he omitted one other scenario:

 You have a phenomenal, out-of-this-world intuition, and so you don’t need to go through all the variations—your phenomenal intuition tells you it’s a draw and so you do know.!

 It’s very possible that you’re holding this belief about yourself, on the basis of your declaring that position a draw, with best play on both sides.

First the definition of "know" Nobody is 100% certain of  anything. After all we could all be a segment of a dream in somebody's mind.

Thus, to me, "know" means 99.99% certain. I am 99.99% certain that chess is a draw with optimum play for both sides. I do not need all the proofs or any of the proofs you mention to come to that conclusion.

My conclusion comes from a very large amount of evidence. Enough evidence that i am 99.99% sure that chess is a draw with optimum play by both sides. [you do not get to say what proof is needed for my claim]  

That is false, again. You are completely unaware of the fact that ‘the amount of evidence’ that you have is child play: the number of games that have been played compared with the number of games yet to be played is way less than 1%. Therefore, what you know, compared to what you don’t know amounts to nothing. 

Right? Which means you know nothing. 

  And the old ‘dillemma’ of not knowing whether you’re in a dream or not only comes up because most people are dreaming, night and day. But when you are really awake, such nonsense questions disappear forever from one’s consciousness.