Will computers ever solve chess?

This is incorrect, since playing a game and solving a game are entirely distinct things.

Not only ‘solving the game,’

Playing a game is one thing, and analyzing various positions from the game is another..

.. It's high time, someone posted, a Non-Sequitur, image, on this thread ! ..{lol}

'Fwiw'.. One of the local overnight 'homeless' hangouts/ outdoor-sleeping, locations ; In "Astoria, Oregon", {usa} .. Bridge, spans the "Columbia River," into "Washington State."

If a computer beat a computer at the top level, playing black and won, perhaps that would be a perfect game, since white, even with a slight advantage lost. The person who plays it automatically wins since it beat a 3500 rated computer. Of course you'd have to wait for it to happen first.

Chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. So, if a computer won a game [with Black] against another strong computer--it would just mean that the computer [with White] made an error.

.. Partially related ; In an extremely daunting, computational sense !

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/college/ncaa/article65885602.html

Chess is a draw when neither side makes an error,

 Just a wild guess, presented as a fact.

Not a wild guess--the evidence is overwhelming that chess is a draw if neither side makes an error.

But there is another forum to debate if chess is a draw?

i think chess win  for white

  What one calls ‘evidence’ is in reality just a wild guess. As of now, we don’t know pretty much anything about the final result, since the extremely small part that we know is clearly overwhelmed by the almost infinite remaining part we don’t know, in regards to the complete picture.

  Some simply hang on to the known and forget all about the unknown. 

Chess is a win for white when neither side makes an error. So, if a computer won a game (with Black) against another strong computer-it would just mean that the computer (with White) made an error.

Chess will 99% most likely be a forced draw once we have solved it.  It takes two weaknesses to win, and the value of the king on defense should trump the slight advantage white has.

No proof:
"Chess is a draw"

Contradicts the previous statement, but still no proof:
"Chess is a win for white when neither side makes an error."

Doesn't make sense because once it is solved, percentages aren't necessary:
"Chess will 99% most likely be a forced draw once we have solved it."

Stated perfectly:

"i think chess is a win for white"

Way to go @ai-chen!😊

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

Chess is an open-ended problem because theoretically - and practically - a game could involve an infinitely long list of moves.

There is, however, a working assumption that the numerical permutations of positions is soluble to a reasonable degree to the extent that certain positions are just "bad" and others "not bad". This assumption however cannot be proved without testing every conceivable permutation of moves, putting these permutations into a database, then making qualitative value judgments about those positions' solubility.

Ergo, chess cannot ever be solved.

Has chess been solved?  No, then there is no proof.  I think the probability it is a draw is extremely high, given the extraordinary amount of game variations.  A win for white would essentially mean the game starts off with black in a mating net.  With the near endless possible game variations I think the statistical probability that black doesn’t have a single variation that forces a 3 move repeat, a stalemate, a 50 move rule, or insufficient material is quite remote. 

 But saying it’s proven to be a draw is an overreach. 

 And unimaginably long list of moves, yes. But literally infinite? No.

Wrong, I'm afraid. A game of chess could be infinitely long. Not really sure why you think it couldn't be. 

Maybe.