Will computers ever solve chess?

I said centipawns. That is a unit of measure for POSITIONAL analysis... just wow.

Engines can give drawn positions a big score, like +2

Engines can also give lost positions 0.00

So I'm not sure using engine evals is useful.

Using something like "making the position harder to play" is not useful either because it's relative to the opponent. An imaginary perfect player may always put maximum pressure on their opponent, but even so, if we're just talking about a perfect game and not a perfect player I think a good definition is one where the true eval (win/draw/loss) never changes.

USArmy to give another example that a game does not have to be solved before a human can play a perfect game:

 It was only a few years ago when the game of checkers was solved by the computer Chinook [computers]. However before the game was solved--all the top players knew the game was a draw when neither side made an error. 

However BEFORE the game of checkers was solved--several humans played perfect games of checkers. [always ending in a draw] Many such perfect games were played even though the game of checkers was not solved!!

Going back looking at those games it can now be confirmed that there was a bunch of perfect games played even though checkers had not been solved.

Same with chess--a couple of players can play a perfect game of chess [chess with no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game] with out even the game of checkers being solved. 

[by the way and this is an "aside" the fact that the best checker players said the game of checkers was a draw is at least some indication that the strong players who state the game of chess is a draw are correct]

This is just one piece of evidence and it is circumstantial but when you pile up a whole lot of different pieces of evidence--it can be said by the best chess players that the game of chess is a draw.

Do i have to give your exact quote for a 3rd time???

I agree with this.

USArmy you have not responded to posts #4674 and #4677

No need, I’ll do it for you. Do I need to explain that’s a POSITIONAL analysis a second time?

#4674 is my own post, which ironically responds to #4677.

Here, again... I NEVER SAID A COMPUTER IS NECESSARY FOR A HUMAN TO PLAY A PERFECT GAME. 

You’re making a strawman argument.

Not a strawman--i will give your exact quote [per post#4670]

If a human ever played a "perfect game" that would mean the super computer evaluated every singe move as a draw with literally perfect play for both sides. [this is your quote]

You are delibertly giving the wrong quote--this is your quote that i refer to: So you made the dubious claim when you said "One can force a draw even when down 6 full centipawns"  [ are you claiming you did not post this????]

And in context:

A computer that has solved chess will ONLY have two different types of position evaluations.

1. Mate in X
2. 0.00

If a human ever played a “perfect game”, that would mean the super computer evaluated every single move as drawn with literally perfect play on both sides - which would mean every move from start to finish was literally unbeatable.

You should stop viewing things through the lense of the vast limitations of humans and current chess engines.

I was clearly making a distinction between flawed  current tools for evaluating positions, and a theoretically perfect one that has chess solved. 

   If I grabbed a different quote that says the exact same thing,  it certainly wasn’t deliberate. You didn’t put a post number.  How did you determine it was deliberate? Was it the same psychic powers you were using to determine whether or not a perfect game has ever been played? 

 It changes nothing. A centipawn IS A POSITIONSAL evaluation. 

The two quotes do not say the same thing. I determined it was deliberate when you ignored my 2 postings before as to the exact quote. 

@ponz111
@usarmyparatrooper

Your argument is confusing, will you just kiss and make up already?

What is the post number you’re referring to?

And here’s my point. A computer sometimes make a WRONG (positional!) evaluation, especially when there is a forced draw. 

You used that to claim a player can force a draw when the opponent is UP. There’s only two things that can mean.

Up Positionally: NO. They can’t. If the opponent can thwart a loss with a forced draw, the *correct* evaluation is 0.00

Up Materially: No kidding! Who doesn’t know that? How is that relevant?

Good god. I KNOW a computer isn’t necessary for a human to play a perfect game. It would only require a human to move the pierces and be extraordinary lucky.

I’m talking about what that would mean if a hypothetical computer solves chess in the future. You really have comprehension issues.

In short, she’s claiming two things.

1. Thousands of perfect games have been played.

2. That she can possibly know that. 

Ponz is a guy. He changes his avatar to pictures of his kids and grandkids from time to time.

Why do you think thousands of perfect games haven't been played?

Depends on how you define it, but never changing the true eval (it's either a win or draw) is a good definition.