Will computers ever solve chess?

You are making an assumption which is not true. One does not have to "see every possible line from every move and every alternate move from start to finish in order to make the claim" [that i have played some games where i have made no errors.]

Any chess player might play a game where he has made no errors [and a lot of players have done this.]

 It is not necessary to know you have played a game with no errors in order to play a game with no errors. [one could just luck into a game where he has made no errors]

However i do know of some of my games where i have made no errors.

All of this is off the question of this forum which is "Will computers ever solve chess?"

ponz111, Okay, let my try this from a another angle.

You previously posted a game where (you claimed) both sides played perfect games with no mistakes, right?

Hey, if two computers with the same level play chess, wouldn't the one that plays white always win?

A lot would depend on  the   strength  of the  2 computers but the game of chess itself is a draw when neither side makes a mistake.

This is off subject for this forum. We have posted enough regarding "perfect games." There is another whole forum for debating if chess is a draw or for debating perfect games. 

I have responded to all questions and attacks regarding chess is a draw and also regarding perfect games.

But this is not the forum for this. This forum is about solving chess.

There is a separate forum for the other 2 questions. I am going to try not to respond to more off subject questions and attacks.

Take it to the proper forum!

You nice deflection.

- You claimed some games have been played where both sides played perfect, that ended in a draw

- You describe a perfect game as a game with NO “errors which would change the theoretical result of the game.”

- If Stockfish had been on the other side of any of those so-called perfect games, Stockfish would have won.

- SO, by NOT playing the stronger Stockfish moves, is that not making “errors which would change the theoretical result of the game”?

USArmy your questions are easily answered. But this is not the forum for that. This is a forum about solving chess.

Take your questions to a forum where  you can get answers to your questions in detail.

[again you are making assumptions which are not true]

  I don’t know what game you’re playing but you cannot be that obtuse as to not understand simple logic: let’s say your opponent opened with 1, e4. Now, in order to claim that 1...c5 is a perfect move you would have to analyze all the variations arising after 1...c5. All the Sicilians invented and not invented, absolutely all the responses by your opponent, all your responses to each of those responses, and all of his responses to your responses, all the way to the end. Now, if 1...c5 did not win in all the variations, only in some, when analyzing all the possible lines arising, then you cannot say 1...c5 is the perfect move. If it wins in all the lines, then you can say it’s a perfect move, but you don’t know if it’s the only perfect response to 1. e4. 

But if it doesn’t win in all the variations you must perform a second step. Now you have to analyze all the other responses, besides 1...c5. 1...e5, 1...Nc6, alll of them, all the way to the end, just like in step one, concluding with the results.  Only now can you finally decide whether 1...c5 was the perfect move. Is that understood?

 And this is just about one perfect move. The same goes for 1...e5 2. Nf3, for 2...Nc6 and for 3. Bb5–for each and every one of them the process is exactly the same, before you can make a silly claim ( silly becUse no such analysis was being done) that you or any other  played ‘perfect moves.’

 Now, if you want to claim ‘perfect games’, as you have, not just perfect moves, by default you would have to continue with all the other moves besides 1...c5 or 1...e5, regardless of the findings, only now you would have to also search all the other possible first moves, besides 1...e4, in order to claim that a game was perfect.

 Perhaps you cannot see the distinction here:

 We are not talking about ‘good moves’, although even that label is just a belief not a fact, since the final picture has not been painted, far from it; we are talking about ‘perfect moves’. 

 Are you getting it? Not just good, but perfect. There is a lot of work before  you can claim some silly moves were perfect.

  For instance, in the above esample, if 1...e5 2. 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 loses through brute force, but 3. d4 wins in the same way, your ‘perfect game’ suddenly becomes imperfect. Right?

 Or, if 1...e5 loses with the best moves in all the possible lines but 1...c5 wins at least in one line, 1...e5 is no longer perfect. Same for 2. Nf3, same for 2...Nc6. If other moves win and these ones lose they

are not perfect, they are imperfect. Right?

It doesn’t matter if two idiots agreed to stop after 3 moves or after 160 moves. their stupid agreement doesn’t prove that the moves they made were perfect, just because they couldn’t see better moves, or you for that matter. 

 It has nothing to do with you and your little experience. The same thing was said about Fischer, that his first 100 moves in the come back match vs Spassky were ‘perfect’. 

 But in order to claim perfection every line must be analyzed. Otherwise don’t call it ‘perfect’.

‘Good’ is good and ‘perfect’ is just something an obtuse brain doesn’t seem to understand. 

 Every step of the way, one finds a move that gives better results after going through all the lines takes away that imagined perfection in a heartbeat.

 So refrain from that label and stick with ‘good’, but keep in mind that even that is not a fact at this point in time. With what we know they appear to be good moves, but since what we know is so little...

 There is  nothing wrong with having beliefs: like I was saying earlier, scientists are also full of them. So are chess players. Good players like Kasparov embrace the facts and move on: he had no problem admitting chess is ultimately a matter of beliefs, and every good player arrives at a system which works for them and that’s that. But some believe they are above all that...

And forget insisting on ‘what this forum is all about.’ A flexible discussion can lead in any direction, and there is no problem tackling that question again. But if the discussion is leading to a specific point, then it must be crystal clear before we can move on.

You do not seem to understand what "perfect" means as regards to a perfect chess game.

I am sorry that you know so little but i cannot help what you don't know.

By the way in the other forum i finally got the consesus down to that chess IS a draw when there are no errors on either side. There were still holdouts regarding "perfect game"

Some confused "perfect game" or "perfect play" with the number of centipawns in each position--not realizing that one can force a draw even when down 6 full centipawns. [as i did in one of the chess problems i solved but the best chess engines could not solve]

All of this erroneous thinking takes time to deal with.

This is why a whole forum was devoted to these 2 subjects with hundreds of posts.

All of this has been discussed and i answered every question and responded to every statement in the other forum. Too much--way too much to repeat here...

no. Although Alpha Zero was a suprise.

Not without the side that was up making an error. If the side that was supposedly way down can force a draw, that just means a It was an improper evaluation. 

“as i did in one of the chess problems i solved but the best chess engines could not solve”

Yes, one quark with engines is they tend to misevaluate some positions that even humans can see are drawn. That has nothing to do with anything. A computer that has SOLVED chess would catch those.

You keep saying “all of this has been answere.” I disagree. Not satisfactorily.

You response is a classic example.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1]

Yes the side that was up [in centipedes] was the best computers at the time AND THEY MADE A MISTAKE [and the human got it right]

There will never be a computer which will solve chess BUT hypothetically if that ever happens then humans will easily play perfect games.

There once was a chess amateur from Kankakee

"Chess is a draw" he would unfailingly decree

He claimed he was right through all the hoopla

But some would say he had too much Chutzpah!

He kept on as he was given the third degree!

USArmy now you are back to your Ad hominem attacks. This is what you also did in the forum "True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both sides" [2275 posts]

Do you really believe i am "ineptitude" and have "low ability" in chess? [and in life?]