Will computers ever solve chess?

It is indeed the number of positions that is more relevant. A tablebase has no need to store every possible ending: it merely needs to contain the evaluation of every move in every possible position (as it involves very little extra computation, tablebases using contain the number of moves to mate against the most obstinate defense for decisive moves). Certainly, a lot of positions can be omitted as not being relevant to a specific strategy, but what is needed is to reduce the logarithm of the number of positions a lot, and this is not so easy.

The Sun is no good for storing information, even if we could, because of its temperature! Finding as much cold matter would be tricky. I'm beginning to think chess is not worth the bother.  As a cautionary tale, here is Arthur C. Clarke's short short science fiction story published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, First Issue, Vol 1, No. 1, Spring 1977

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quarantine 

Earth's flaming debris still filled half the sky when the question filtered up to Central from the Curiosity Generator.

"Why was it necessary? Even though they were organic, they had reached Third Order Intelligence."

"We had no choice: five earlier units became hopelessly infected, when they made contact."

"Infected? How?"

The microseconds dragged slowly by, while Central tracked down the few fading memories that had leaked past the Censor Gate, when the heavily-buffered Reconnaissance Circuits had been ordered to self-destruct.

"They encountered a - problem - that could not be fully analyzed within the lifetime of the Universe. Though it involved only six operators, they became totally obsessed by it."

"How is that possible?"

"We do not know: we must never know. But if those six operators are ever re-discovered, all rational computing will end."

"How can they be recognized?"

"That also we do not know; only the names leaked through before the Censor Gate closed. Of course, they mean nothing."

"Nevertheless, I must have them."

The Censor voltage started to rise; but it did not trigger the Gate.

"Here they are: King, Queen, Bishop, Knight, Rook, Pawn."

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Here you phrased it differently. Either way, I would be interested to see how you arrived at either of these conclusions.

Since a perfect game can only be played by white, losing doesn't even matter, when playing black because it's always going to lose anyway. So losses don't mean it's making a mistake. That means that only losses playing white are important.  

Sorry but both White and Black can play a perfect game.

Where is the Quarantine story from?

I gave info about where it was published originally.

Oops, I may have blundered

No, easily missed! 

Yes .

Yes !

Also any number of reasons, like how even if you had an atom, since it's a fusion reactor, it'd be gone sooner or later.

I've already covered this multiple times.  You just choose to ignore it or have forgotten it, much like your own position/assertions, so you can do the digging if you want to find the exact numbers again...essentially you take the world's fastest supercomputer, how much it costs, then figure out the total financial wealth of the entire planet, producing X number of said supercomputers (if humanity were to bend every available resource to solving chess and nothing else, including stuff like, you know, food)...then you take the processing power of that amount of supercomputers and apply it to the 10^46.7 positions, leaving you with a gazillion years required.  Then you apply Moore's Law, even though that is also not holding up, and you still get a gazillion years required.  Far more than even a few sprinkled in discovered quantum leaps in computing power will alleviate.  Then for shits and giggles you allow for another 999,999 out of every million positions to be eliminated as "bad positions", and you still end up with a gazillion years required.  Ergo, not possible to solve currently, or in our lifetimes, or in any foreseeable future.

You can either dig up my numbers (probably somewhere between pages 60-100) or find all the variables I listed yourself and crank the numbers through.  I'd recommend the former, given your track record.

Let me know if you ever decide to show your work using normal mathematical conventions and numbers.

победа

ынцнц4нц4ц4гц4гц4г4цг

Already done, as I said.  It's on this thread, and I even told you the most likely area.  Somehow, I found all your posts and quotes and picked out ones of interest not that long ago (hmmm, maybe I used some computer skills you lack).  Or did you forget that, too, because you have a memory like a sieve?  Explains your inability to argue points consistently.

Vickalan said:

page 56:
"On the other hand, if best play is a draw, chess won't be solved until the entire tree is checked. So we can only expect an answer in our lifetime if one side can force a win. But if perfect play is a draw, we probably won't know it within our lifetime."

page 57:
"Checkers has been solved. Chess is a big leap, but it could happen within a decade or two."

page 61:
"As for solving chess, there is some reason to believe it can happen within a decade or two."
"So chess might be able to be solved in 18 years."

page 62:
"These are other advances that will help solve chess, compared to computers in 2007 when checkers was solved. I agree with Campter: Yes - chess may soon be solved."

page 109:
"If I must make a guess, I would say Yes chess will be solved within 200 years or so."

tree diagrams: pages 65, 68, 116, 117, 127, 145

triangle diagrams: pages 165, 182

venn diagram: pages 146, 184

moving a sofa animated gif: page 176

Curious to see your work using normal mathematical conventions and numbers that supports your statement above.

As soon as you admit you don't know the first thing about computers, not even enough to find my post...because clearly, if you are this computer-dense, you have no business commenting on this thread.

I've read your posts and checked your math. Your claims were immediately and soundly refuted.