Will computers ever solve chess?

The repetition of a  speculation presented—irrationally—as a fact, warrants the repetition of exposing such irrationality. The latter repetition is rational—exposing an irrationality—the former is in itself irrational. 

 But those who have nothing valuable to add, while failing to see the importance of a point, will throw childish labels—their only ‘contribution’, buried in poor syntax.

Nope.  I simply point to the immense amounts of time you devote to "correcting" a former USCF CC Champion.

As for "logic," you need a feel more courses.  It shows.  (Positivist) hairsplitting over the word "perfect" shows you have lost the thread, QED.

Another choice quote from the Russellian wonderland, without citation?

You apparently can't even cut and paste (plagerize) with verve.

Sorry to Inform.

No need for a silly post with silly labels and poor syntax to be seen again. Once is more than enough.Those who understand the reference, good for them, those who don’t, so be it. The post in question said nothing anyway, and that was pointed out. 

Have a Nice Day, Troy.  I'm sorry you work so hard for it.

  All the world Champions put together have no clue as to what a perfect game is—again, an argument based on an extremely small experience, compared to the huge amount of games that have not been played, with their respective billions of moves that have not been looked at.

  Champion or loser, the fact remains the same, but some are slower than others at grasping it.

Yes, that's what happens in the Russellian wonderland -- Only the Gods of Logic can point out the "facts."  Only the Logicians breath that Olympian air. 

Your ego is breathtaking.  It doesn't become you.

sorry but i'm accustomed to speak in formal Language and english is so poor that i lost myself

To 4385:

So far you are not pointing any facts. If what I point is not a fact show us, we can all learn. Certainly to suggest that someone is right because they are Champions, former or actual, is irrational— that’s pretty obvious, when you consider that their experience amounts to nothing in the big picture.

  And don’t use words you don’t really know what they mean: you have no clue as to what ‘ego’ is.

 Haha! Apparently not completely, which is the highest form of intelligence.

Ponzs response made me laugh because I agree with him pretty much about everything. It's just funny he takes it so seriously. All his comments about not telling the truth, bad arguments, etc. I totally agree with. I was just trying to copy his belief. I wonder if he comes down that hard on his own identical belief. Probably the difference though is I dont have a belief, I just have a guess. You and Elroch make the most sense because you say things how they are, not how you want them to be. For all anyone knows whites winning percentage will keep going up over time until a brick wall is hit, where it's proven black can force a win every game.

You need to get your head out of your arse -- compare your bolded quote above, QED.

You shift from Freshman Logic 101, to Freshman Anti-Freudian Psychology.  Neat trick.

• It’s a move from fact to fact, but if you think something is not a fact, go ahead, refute it. So far you’re just being vulgar with nothing else to say.
•  And no, you still have no clue as to what the nature and the structure of the ego is. 

  Yes, that is a possibility—it keeps going up until it doesn’t (the percentage of White wins). Which is why the present statistics are not relevant, from the vantage point of a final evaluation of a move, opening or game.

 ‘For all anyone knows’—exactly.

   It’s not even a guess: at this point in time, we can say that anything is a possibility, and that nothing can be ruled out. Now, to rule out something would be a guess, a speculation, a belief. But not based on logic.

I do belief there is an "objective truth" in chess. And computers may be very helpfull in figuring out the right evaluation of a certain position. In the first match Karpov-Kasparov, (the one aborted after 48 games) Karpov with black played a very remarkable 6th game. Around or on move 20 he played Qa5, placing the last of his pieces on the A-file. I always love watching this position. But was it a good move? Did black have the advantage or was it a dead loss? These sort of questions will be hard to solve for humans but can be answered by computers. 

You can be very confident there is objective truth in chess: it is a mathematical theorem that there is. Every position has a single result with optimal play - 0, 1/2 or 1. Every move is either correct (it maintains the optimal result) or is a blunder (it reduces the optimal result from the point of view of the player who made it).

Sometimes we (or computers) can find this truth. A lot of the time we can just have an opinion whose validity can be tested by results.

  Such an ‘objective truth’ is right now only relative: computers’ horizon is severely limited at the moment...

 What’s wrong with the black king?

Thanks for blocking me Troy now I don't waste anymore of my time on a little dork like you you don't get it and you never will you have no life experience and you can't get into a discussion that you don't control sad little boy with limited narrow perceptions no life experience no death experience no friends a real nobody really glad I've been blocked by you because you're worthless and I'm not and you're meaningless and I'm not and I'm glad we're different because you're a punk haha hahaha