Will computers ever solve chess?

I agree with this.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is guilty. This is proven because I know enough about law to know he’s guilty”

“And also there’s other evidence if you dig through my blog”

Cool story, Bro. 👍

NO WRONG you cannot speak for me. I say that in the short game i gave there were no mistakes [we are talking about mistakes-not errors--"errors" is ambiguous--we are taking about mistakes which would change the outcome of the game.]

Looks perfect to me.

And they're not even titled players

A lot of this opinion has to do with chess judgments and chess evaluations and i am quite satisfied with my own prowess. 

I mean... obviously the game I posted isn't good in a practical sense, if you need to win.

But the way a 32 man tablebase would see it, all the moves were good.

How did you determine they are perfect? How did you determine that nowhere along the way a (theoritical) computer that solved chess wouldn’t find a win by force, for either side, anywhere along the way?

It's a good question.

How do I know for sure the sun will rise tomorrow?

How do I know for sure how old I am?

I'd put my certainty that the game I posted was always a draw somewhere in between those (I'm more certain the sun will rise than how old I am).

Okay, fine. You can say it. But I can say there’s a Staypuft marshmallow man living on Mars. 

In the context of the thread topic (solving chess) the difference between a mistake and error are semantics. There is only forced mate or draw by force.

I will agree the game above looks like perfect game and seems to have no game changing mistakes by either side.

After you study enough you can be pretty certain.

Humans aren't perfect, but we do have real knowledge about chess.

Just think, calculating maybe at the speed of 1 position per second, and on average looking maybe 6-10 moves deep, a top GM can play the computer's choice ~7 out of 10 moves... and the computer is looking at 100s of millions of positions per second. There's no way we could do that without knowing a few things. For real knowing, not guesses

USArmy if you say there is a Staypuft marshmallow man living on Mars you would be very probably wrong. [and the thing is--you would know what you say is not true]

I have actual evidence the Sun will rise. Shall I articulate it? 

What evidence do you have to support your position?

And they still lose to each other. Which means they make blunders and they misevaluate positions.

Hundreds of millions of positions? One mathematician (conservatively) estimated there are 1 (and a 120 zeros after it) game variations.

Definitely computers aren't perfect... but it's like running nearly as fast as a car, you'd have to be ridiculously strong. Sure planes go faster, but the point is it's pretty damn good.

The top 10 players play chess pretty damn well. I guess that's my point.

I’m not doubting any of that. My point is we can’t know if a game was ever played with all perfect moves. Not unless we can follow through every branch of every branch of every variation from start to finish.

Yeah, I'm not as sure as the sun, it was somewhere in between remember.

But it's not impossible that the sun wont rise. Some freak astronomical event could destroy the earth. With no horizon, there'd be no sunrise

---

My evidence, I would say, is that I've studied endgames (which helps make long term evaluations about middlegames and even things like pawn structure out of the opening).

I agree.

If you look at chess history for more than 100 years-- players are getting stronger and stronger and in the World Championship matches there are more and more draws.

Same with computer aided chess. When I played in the United States Correspondence Chess Championship there were no computers used--it was before the time of the computer even reaching master level. So for that Championship I had only 1 draw out of 14 games.

However now in strong correspondence championships you will sometimes find 12 draws and 2 wins as enough to come in first place.

👍