Will computers ever solve chess?

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

Maybe.

Also if you wanted to argue that ONCE we have chess "solved" we know 100% that we are correct, that would also be false, because we can never be  100% sure about anything including the laws of physics and the universe, all human knowledge is based purely on observation and analysis of an almost negligible sample of the entire universe, in a very small sample of time, and filtered through our own limited model of reality.

zero human facts have ever been verified to us by an omniscient entity, and likely they never will.  We wouldn't have the capability of knowing that an entity was purely omniscient anyway.  We are likely living in a simulation and even if we could prove that we are living in a simulation we would never know that there is or is not another simulation 1 layer deeper.  If you think I am crazy for believing we are in a simulation... Is it any more crazy than believing in the astronomically impossible chain of events that lead us to our current existence.  If you study AI neural networks you will come to the realization that humans are basically complex biological general purpose AI that have been stranded in the middle of nowhere, with missing information, and left on our own to decide our utility function (utility function for an AI is basically it's driving purpose)  

Nope. Even in Star Trek, Spock had to program the computer. And in Star Trek, thay had "teleporters". ("Scotty, beam me up!" -James Kirk) And even then, the computers didn't come with good 3-D chess software! It didn't even come with awful 3-D chess software! Spock had to program it all himself! Poor Spock. He just wants to play a little chess without working.

Oh, right. He's OK with programming the computer.

  We are talking about verifying all the possible variations. We are not questioning the game of chess itself.  We have a game, we have a limited number of rules, we want to solve it. If some super-computer could do that ( unlikely ), then it would be solved. Case closed.

  It’s like the perception of color, which technically doesn’t exist, but because most of us can    see colors, we go with that. It’s part of our perception system. Case closed.

  One keeps missing the point: what we don’t know trumps what we know by a very, very, very, very long shot. Less than 0.0001% of the total number of possible games have been played, and in the games that were played an even smaller number of variations have been analyzed, from move one.

 One’s ‘proof’ could be refuted a zillion times by future analysis. It doesn’t take much logic to see this.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

 Never. I stand firm. Unless this can be brought to life.

  That’s not what he claims. He claimed he knows the result of a perfect game. We are simply saying we don’t know what a perfect game is.

Because of the three move repeat rule. There’s no conceivable way the game doesn’t eventually end. Even if players are avoiding checkmate there’s a finite amount of positions (albeit an extraordinarily large amount), and eventual you have to repeat, checkmate, or choose a position that is drawn by rule.

For sure chess remains unsolved.

I know the result of a perfect game. [perfect game is a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game]

To show you the evidence that the result of a perfect game is a draw would take many pages of evidence and this is discussed in another forum.

However the evidence is overwhelming that the result of a perfect game is a draw.

You don’t KNOW the results of a perfect game because you don’t know if a perfect game has ever been played.

You posted games before CLAIMING to know they were perfect games. When asked “how do you know they’re perfect” you gave the non-answer “from my experience.” 

You: “perfect game is a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game”

Play ANY human verses Stockfish or Komodo (configured most powerful settings, on the most powerful system). The human loses EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Question: How does the human lose every game if there are ANY games “where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game”?

USArmy  The answers to your questions are in the Forum on this subject,

Also you misquote me when you seem to claim that the only evidence I gave on how i know certain very short games were perfect as my more than 60 years experience is only a small part of the evidence.

Regarding why a human loses vs Stockfish or Komodo every single time is easy--it is because the human will make an error. Stockfish and Komodo on their most powerful settings can calculate thousands of times [or more] faster than a human. Also a human gets tired or fatiqued easily and chess machines do not.

 And, yes, many perfect games have been played. Often they are very short games where a draw is agreed after 3 or 4 moves.

But as mentioned--this is off the subject of this forum. There is another whole forum on the question is chess a draw with perfect play?

NONE of what you posted can remotely be construed as evidence. Okay let me break this down.

1: You define a perfect game as “a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game.”

2. You claimed to know there ARE in fact, thousands of games played by humans which were perfect, meaning neither side made an error which would change the theoretical result of the game. 

3.  Which would not only mean humans are capable of drawing against the most powerful engine set-up in the world, they are capable of drawing against perfect play. 

4. It goes even further than #3.  Since the strongest engines in the world often beat each other, and since humans are capable of playing perfect chess, that would mean unequivocally that humans are also capable of beating the top engines on the hardest settings, even if only on rare occasion. 

5. But we know that’s not true.  We know that humans are incapable of even drawing against the worlds top engines when configured to full strength (both software and hardware). 

 In short, your claim:

- humans are capable of playing perfect chess and have done so thousands of times.  

- But we know humans lose each and every time to the top engines, if those engines are set to max and the humans aren’t given a handicap. 

- Which can only mean humans make errors that affect the outcome of the game each and every time.

Note that it is a lot easier to avoid errors against an opponent who is not so strong! Indeed fully half of practical chess strength (as reflected in ratings) is giving the opponent the opportunity to make errors. (The other half is, of course, not making errors).

You're still wrong. You claimed that a chess game could not have an infinitely long list of moves. But it can. The three-fold repetition rule does not mean the game is a draw; it just means that a player can claim it as a draw. If neither claims it as a draw, the game continues, ad infinitum if so.

So, once again, a chess game can involve an infinitely long number of moves. This is just a simple statement of truth.

Here’s what you said: “a game could involve an infinitely long list of moves.” 

A piece repeating the same move from the same position isn’t adding to the “list of moves.” 

This was supposed to support your assertion: “Ergo, chess cannot ever be solved.”

That players can move peices back and forth repeatedly and never claim a draw does not in any way prevent chess from being solved.

Sorry but everything you posted above has been answered in the other forum. You are simply ignoring page after page of answers to these questions and statements.

Your #3 is incorrect and i have explained why.

Your #4 is incorrect and i have explained why.

You are simply ignoring what i said. 

But all this is off the subject of this forum.