Will computers ever solve chess?

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.

 arguing with a sophist it's impossible since xthousand years

french defense is refuted.

my social life too

dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum

Suspendisse enim trahit puto ego arbitror ludo

Never

To 4362:

You are what?

OK. In that case, I am 99.99% certain that chess is a win for white with optimum play for both sides. I do not need all the proofs or any proofs 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 win for white with optimum play by both sides, (you do not get to say what proof is needed for my claim)

Since I looked more carefully at the evidence, I am significantly more open to the possibility that chess is a win for white. It is feasible that white's empirical advantage is only as small as it is because of imprecisions in play that we are incapable of detecting at present. However, I still believe it is more likely chess is a draw.

Do you know if the advantage for white is increasing at a steady rate over time? You mentioned before some statistics from a hundred years ago or so. Does it seem like the rate of increase for whites advantage is staying the same or is it increasing faster recently because of computers ability to play better?

Here is a paragraph from WIkipedia that summarises some of the data.

"In 1946, W.F. Streeter examined the results of 5,598 games played in 45 international chess tournaments between 1851 and 1932. Streeter found that overall White scored 53.4% (W: 38.12; D: 30.56; L: 31.31).[nb 2] White scored 52.55% in 1851–1878 (W:45.52; D: 14.07; L: 40.41), 52.77% in 1881–1914 (W: 36.89; D: 31.76; L: 31.35), and 55.47% in 1919–1932 (W: 36.98; D: 36.98; L: 26.04). Streeter concluded, "It thus appears that it is becoming increasingly difficult to win with Black, but somewhat easier to draw.

In addition, modern chess databases have around 55% white score, and TCEC top engine competition has seen 55.4% white score. So with those alone, there is no sign of a trend since the 1930. AlphaZero-Stockfish did see a substantially higher white score, however, and that is the strongest sample of data we have.

Without the last, there is clearly a trend over time only up to the 1930s (and with strength of players: weaker players get less advantage from white), but it is quite a narrow range. [Note that for both professionals and computers, blitz scores see a lower percentage advantage for white - only 52-53%, like 19th century masters! This is surprising for the engines, as they are rather strong at blitz speed].

I think there is a risk of reading too much into the AlphaZero-Stockfish results. It will be interesting to see if other AIs reinforce this result as they are developed.

maybe White is in zugzwang...how can we know...trillions of permutations cubic shannon number..maybe after the zilion move black\white magically wins or MORE IMPORTANT if we reach on the board that magic disposition (none has reached the magic disposition in every game played from the beginning...obviously you know this fact) the world will vanish in a move

Obviously, past statistics mean nothing, from a solved-chess vantage point.

if it happens..it will soon..with that new engine

Actually, there was a very good point in that post above:

 Since the OP presents his beliefs about positions and moves being perfect as facts, anybody can present the opposite belief, since a belief doesn’t need any demonstration—it’s just a belief. But he wants to present it as a fact, not as a belief, which given the little we know at the moment, compared to the huge amount that we don’t, has no basis in reality.

 Here, the strength of belief is irrelevant: the greater the ignorance, the stronger the belief, to compensate and cover up what’s behind the belief.

you are not addressing the specific points i was making regarding post number 4365.

@Ponz, there's no headway to be made talking to kids ensconced in their Introduction to Logic 101 Class, -- Freshman year, no doubt.  They all believe it turns them into Superman, instead of outdated, 100-year old pin-headed positivists.  

With age comes Wisdom, if your want respect for elders, it's better to become Native American.  @Elroch might be the only level headed person in the last 30 posts.

Best Wishes to You.

  You are not getting it: all the evidence that has been gathered revolves around less than 1% of all the possible games that can be played. What you call ‘a ton of evidence’ amounts to NOTHING when it comes to the total picture of ALL THE POSSIBLE GAMES.

 You know nothing, as compared to the big picture, and you are fooling yourself that ‘this less than 1% has any meaning compared to the more than 99% that you have no clue about—therefore you are presenting your belief as a fact: but what lies behind your misrepresentation of a belief as a fact is an overestimation of what you know: which in the big picture is a little more than nothing, by the most generous measurement.

As for 4365, you can fool yourself that you are 99.99% certain about any projection you make. The strength of that belief in your own projection( as opposed to a fact) does not magically transform your own projection into a fact.

You don’t seem capable of logically following that your ‘ton of evidence’ amounts to nothing—again, for the nth time because you are too slow to follow a simple fact—because nobody knows what the final evaluation of any position or move will be, until you exhaust all the possible permutations.

 Until that happens, you have absolutely no clue as to what a perfect or optimum move is.

 Speculate away by all means, but to present that speculation as a fact is where your logic fails and irrational belief takes over.