Will computers ever solve chess?

No.

  Or even immortal by replacing the used genes, which with age contain errors, like the inability to read a simple coded message. 

  In fact, immortality exists already, but at the cellular level, unfortunately. The cancerous cells lack the ‘ability’ to read messages to kill themselves, so instead of multiplying and then committing suicide, they multiply forever. 

  Unfortunately because cellular immortality translates into whole organism mortality. Whereas the opposite, cellular mortality would be one of the factors allowing for the organism immortality. 

  The body gets these error messages—which are really genetic mutations— from time to time, and corrects them—it’s rather normal— but, once in a while, for unknown reasons at the moment, it fails to do so, and the errors slip through and cancer develops.

  Then there is the problem with the parts, heart, liver, even brain: how long can they last, even with no cellular tear? At some point the problem could be solved, long after we”re gone though, although there are solutions to overcome this slight problem of timing!

 Sure, defined, but not demonstrated. It’s a basic fact in math, everyone knows this, it’s common knowledge in math. 

I take it that some agreement has been arrived at as to how to define "solved" somewhere. Can anyone recall what it was?

If it means that every conceivable position legally arrived at has to be shown to be a win, loss or draw, it is not going to be done, even by a computer, any time soon.

usually when threads get so long it's buried... can't find any post except in the beginning 5 and the end 5.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/spending-to-much-time-indoors-in-front-of-screens-2?page=1#last_comment

Vickalan is a little too logic-averse to understand this obvious concept.  Any decent chess player that thinks it through for a minute will realize this without any math .  Sadly, Vickalan doesn't play decent chess, and therefore does not grasp that this is far from an interesting conclusion...maybe he can spruce it up with a graph.

I was a mathematician originally, and I can assure you that each axiom is itself a trivial theorem in the formal sense: they are propositions that can be proven from the axioms. It just happens that in this dull case, the proofs involve only one step - exhibiting the axiom.

It is actually surprisingly common for this pattern of verifying a proposition by simply looking it up in a list of assumed true propositions to be used.

For example, consider this set of axioms: "Humans are great apes" "Gorillas are great apes" Chimpanzees are great apes" "Orang utans are great apes".

If presented with the proposition "XXX are great apes" for some species name XXX, the first thing you would do is check your list of axioms to see if the proposition was there, and would consider it proven if it was.

Most mathematics involves more involved reasoning, for sure.

Still, it seems revealing to me that without taking a fact like 1+1=2 for granted, as a fact that cannot be proven through any mathematical means, the subsequent calculations are based on this unprovable equation. 

 It seems that math is not a system that can stand on its own, but instead relies on accepted truths. For all of its rigorous demonstrations with one thing flowing logically into another, similar to chess but on a bigger scale, it seems disappointing that the logic it uses relies on the illogical consequence of an axiom, which in essence is:

  ‘ Don’t ask why, it is so’!!

If that is the foundation on which the whole math is built, no wonder we have many scientists drowned in personal beliefs: it is the foundation of their entire work/knowledge ( behind the facade of logic they’ve built over that foundation)!! 

  A minute? Nah, it can be seen instantly if one considers a forced win from the very first move. Then it’s crystal-clear.

 Are your feelings still hurt?

You've never managed to hurt my feelings .

But it is fun to point out your constant gaffes and pratfalls, because you are always overly smug even if the face of your own outright ignorance or lack of understanding.

Oops, you made another mistake. Ernst Zermelo is a well respected mathematician and game theorist (look him up). You resorting to insults just makes it seem like you're a crybaby.

well :-)

you guys are talented in chess pratics, mathematics, philososophy, game theory ,theory probability , chess strategy\theory and history...

u make the Mensa a minus habens club.

your parents should be very proud

All this is true. Mathematics can never be proven to be correct. The reason we trust it comes down to two things. The first is that a chosen formal system encapsulates the behaviour of objects we intuitively understand. For example Peano's axioms do a good job of encapsulating the intuitive idea of counting numbers. The fact that however many times you add one to a number, you will never get zero has to be assumed: it is an axiom. There is an inescapable reason for this: if we make a different assumption, we get a different mathematical system. (A classic example is the parallel postulate. This is an axiom which can't be proven. If you replace this axiom, you get spherical or hyperbolic geometry instead of Euclidean geometry).

Secondly, these formal systems are consistent. It is no good having a set of axioms and rules if with them you can prove anything and its negation!

Regarding the consistency issue, it is a well-known theorem that it is impossible to prove the consistency of any mathematical system that includes number theory (this contrasts dramatically with first order logic). So mathematicians rely on an intuitive belief in consistency (consistent with the evidence). In addition, no formal system that includes number theory is complete (again contrasting with first order logic).

Right, but let us be clear: if we change the basic axiom of one system we get another system, also based on a belief, a statement which can’t  be proven.

 As for numbers, well, if you add one to a number you can never get zero, provided that number is zero or bigger, a positive number. Enlarge that domain to include negative numbers and zero suddenly becomes a possibility.

 But the larger implication is that you see mathematicians ( and scientists in general) believing in a supernatural factor, and at first it seems shocking, that a logical person’s whole view of life is based on a superstitious belief. 

  But seen through this bigger picture that their whole profession is based on a bundle of beliefs, it suddenly seems to make sense, not in the sense of them being correct, but of explaining their outlook on life.

Not all beliefs are superstitious, based on the supernatural. I did not imply that. I only went directly to that belief, expressed publicly by many mathematicians or scientists in general, and drew a parallel between that deep belief and the fact that their whole profession did not discover something which is beyond belief, just like any non-scientific mind out there.

 It seems that a scientist’s mind is operating differently than a layman’s, and it turns out that deeply it doesn’t.

 Now, we can go even deeper. Expressed or not, the belief in a supernatural ‘agent’ is a common factor of humanity. Some may call themselves atheists or agnostics, but that is just the facade. In a true crisis, that deeply buried belief will come to life, asking that agent for this or that, regarding their life or that of their loved ones.

 As long as a human being has not solved the problem of fear, of mental insecurity, they are bound to believe in a creator, in somebody who looks after them, essentially, in an ideal parent. 

 As medieval as that is, its root, which is fear, has never been solved, and so this false crutch has always existed, logical thinking on the surface or not. 

  Because a logical scientist/mathmetician is deeply irrational in his everyday life. At the core of his being, he is irrational, which is why you see them snap, from time to time, and commit horrific crimes, just like anybody else: the irrationality was there all along, snap or no snap. Their entire profession becomes an escape from that fundamental fear, common to all mankind.

 But that is well beyond the scope of this thread, which only deals with solving a game created by the same mind which lives with a basic illusion.

Yes, and you failed to understand that his conclusion was obvious, and needn't be stated to chess players, but only to those who don't really understand chess moves or basic logic.  Carl Sagan liked to talk about billions and billions of galaxies, and he had great credentials, too.  It doesn't mean that every schoolchild who took any Astronomy at all didn't know that there are billions and billions of galaxies...the difference here is that you presented the "billions" equivalent as some profound insight.  This is something that is done by somebody that has no understanding of the subject at hand, but likes to makes constant appeals to authority.  You toss out names and links to papers, but display a complete lack of understanding whenever you actually are called upon to use your own smarts to interpret anything .

It is inherently obvious to a chess player that gives it any thought that if white has a forced win, black cannot also have one, and vice versa.  How could this be a surprising conclusion for you?  No, seriously...how?

troy when some calls themselves "atheists" it is NOT a facade.