Will computers ever solve chess?

What an inane conclusion.

Back to that ridiculous StackExchange thread?  Really?  

- Neophyte developers forum with no more or less credibility than here.

- Two replies and a sprinkling of comments, almost every one from the same two posters, neither of whom actually have any background or research, just conjecture.  Two.  "Programmers and mathematicians".  Which one is which, Vickalan?

I think that's ambiguous. There are algorithms, but we don't have the technology. That leaves us where Shannon left is in 1949. Chess will require >10^90 years to solve? That is not within a person's life-time, so I take this as "No - chess cannot be solved within a person's lifetime". – tomoka kazuki

It is the one guy that feels that Chess isn't going to be solvable within our lifetimes, or the other guy that feels that Chess isn't going to solvable in our lifetimes?  How do you know they have the backgrounds you claimed?  Are you perhaps making assumptions based on the ethnic origin of their names?  That seems dangerous, and unethical, how do you feel about that?

What a lively scientific debate...thanks, Google!

It's easy to be rational and polite when you are also ignorant, much like a government clerk that doesn't know how to file your paperwork but is amiable throughout their bumbling.  I didn't start off this way, nor do I respond this way on all threads, nor even to everyone on this thread.  Just the daydreamy club (like Vickalan, s23bog, yourself, etc.) and the trolls.

As for Vickalan's answers being easier for you to understand...well, that just stands to reason doesn't it?  Are you a Trump voter by chance?  Same phenom.

I think maybe I'll just switch to posting a thread summary when applicable...something like:

Warning!  If you are just entering this thread, please be aware of the following:

- Vickalan and s23bog are space cadets

- Most of the other hangers-on are fuzzy logic, pseudo-science types with zero background in computers in general or chess engines or chess evaluation/calculation methods specifically

- There's been no significant new info on this thread for well over a hundred pages

- It's pointless to comment here unless you are here to combat the misinformation

- There is no plausible reason to believe Chess can be solved in our lifetimes in over two hundred pages here

There's thousands of computers that probably could beat you.

And...?  Every decent engine can beat every human Chess player alive...

You switched your position to a belief?😲

I didn't switch anything.  Logically, all the positions on this thread are beliefs and not certainties.  Your belief is just a billion billion times less likely than my belief (I'll spot you the other 10 orders of magnitude from your bad analysis).

Not necessarily. If I say one cannot give examples of perfect games because chess haven’t been solved, it’s not a belief. On the contrary: presenting it as ‘perfect’ is a belief.

  Or I say we cannot say that Black cannot win no matter what, it’s a fact, we can’t say that. If we do, it’s merely a belief. 

  Or even that White holds a small advantage, but it might be insufficient to win—therefore there are only draws with perfect lay—or by increasing this small advantage incrementally, it will eventually win—because that small advantage in the beginning will grow bigger and bigger, with perfect play.

  Again, that’s a belief: we don’t know if White holds any advantage in the beginning, as the position could be a Zugzwang, or it could offer equal chances for both sides.

  So by taking the position of we don’t really know we are in fact saying that anything is possible, which is not a belief.

You switched. Check what you said at post #4015. Also, some people talk math. Math has certainties.

Post #4015 was 564 posts ago! How do you remember this stuff!?

Maybe we are just smarter than you. You are trying, but the way you present yourself isn't very appealing. You might say something that has merit every once in a while, but it doens't get noticed because of how you say it. For now I will stick with the idea that it's possible to solve chess. Mainly because people like troy and vick dont get so uptight about the whole thing when they say what's on their mind.  Your rude outbursts overshadow what could otherwise possibly be a contribution to the discussion.

 I can confirm that 23, with whom I’ve had a long convo, fits that description perfectly.

For those who say you don't like how I say things, feel free to skip my posts, or read other threads I post in that I am not as "pointed" in.  I respond as I do here because of a long history on this thread to which you are not privy, because you weren't here...so...[insert gesture here].

As for being smarter than me...well, I've read your posts here and in other threads, and I'm going to stick with me over you and the brain-damaged guy that can only talk about bad breath put together.

Post #4015 is your post.  The tiny soundbite you quoted me on in your post has nothing to do with "switching" anything.  Geez, I don't think I've ever interacted with anyone that is literally wrong more than they are right, but you are damn close.

Some people talk math?  Not in this thread ...

Note to self: ‘math has certainties’? Just earlier in this thread a mathematician agreed that all math is based on beliefs, its foundation, something which I pointed out earlier.

 If these ‘certainties’ are born out from beliefs, and develop from there into a sound system, then are they certainties?

#4539   #4547  #4551  #4558  #4560  #4582  #4589

is this thread so boring that no mod came in to adjust this ?

That's changing from a statement to a belief. I won't argue with your belief, although the rest of us can communicate without having a temper tantrum.

To me, that’s not a belief, but a denial of even a belief. In the sense that there’s no remotely logical reason to back up such a belief. The position is the same. Just sayin’.

[sigh]

Ok, let me disabuse you of your perceived cleverness yet again...

Those statements are absolutely compatible.  Nor is their any reason that a statement and a belief cannot co-exist.  But, even if none of that were true, you are taking the 2nd quote from my "warning to other posters" post.  Now, surely even you can comprehend that when crafting a warning for other people, you tailor the language to the potential readers, and attempt to address their likely thoughts/worries/responses, not your own beliefs.

You are off base, not once, but three times in a single simple premise.  Oops, wait...4 times...you tried to slip by us that you screwed up the post number (and just listed post #4051 like you said that all along).  Perhaps you are dyslexic.  There's no shame in that.  You are like a Darwin award waiting to happen in many other ways, though, and there is plenty of shame in that.  You can control it.

P.S. In over 200 pages you will not find a single "temper tantrum" from me.  What you will find are measured, cold, and accurate attempts to show you and others what fools you are making of yourselves, because all of the nice attempts failed long ago to pierce your veil of ignorance.  I don't even mind your position, if you actually held it for any valid reasons you could state, but you don't, you and others just flail around in your complete lack of understanding of the scope of the numbers or how computers actually work.  Take an assembly language class or something, anything that could remove the magic fog from your understanding of computer calculations at a low level (hardware)...you could easily educate yourself and not come across like an Astrologer at an Astronomy convention:  "but Mercury can and probably is going backwards in its orbit, because it is not impossible...this is my proof of retrograde planet motions".  It's not a black box.

That's the problem here, not that you think Chess can be solved by some miracle discovery in the near future, but that you can't even comprehend, much less admit, the orders of magnitude and how far off you are in your "flip a coin, heads chess is solved next week, tails it isn't" world.  And in your smug ignorance, you infect other ignorant impressionables, who then spew the same "inexactitudes" that you do, like a cancer of failed human intellect.

No doubt you will read this like I am raging and stomping around, but I am not, I am as calm and rational as I am every single time I correct you out of pity for your plight and the plight of the infected.  You're like a koala with an STD, blithely passing along your malady while you slowly chew your eucalyptus leaves.  Pointed statements and insults are just the rolled up newspaper, because you have demonstrated so many times times that you can understand no less.