Will computers ever solve chess?

I added some stuff. It's unfortunately on the bottom of the previous page.

“So if skilled players play passively, then it's not unlikely to be perfect.”

Based on what? 

Take Stockfish operating full strength on a super computer. Take ANY player and give him no handicap. Just tell him to play passively. How do you think that will work out?

That’s JUST Stockfish. Imagine a monster that solved chess. 

And I only did so well against SF when... you guessed it... symmetrical passive stuff. Like an exchange french, then a lot of pieces come off before move 30.

When it was more complicated I did about as well as you'd expect.

“A perfect game between players of mismatched skill is highly unlikely. But that's not what I'm talking about, so I don't know why this is relevant.”

Two equal strength players sit at a table. If on move 7 a player makes a move that a stronger player would be able to exploit, the move isn’t perfect - irrespective of whether his opponent was able to exploit it.

Now carry that forward to literally the strongest player possible. A computer that solved chess. We can’t know if a perfect game has been played.

I agree.

And a perfect player may say a move is losing that we were 100% sure was fine. It would really shock us. That's why we can't know for sure.

But because the nature of the starting position is unlikely to cause mistakes, and because it takes a relatively large mistake to lose (we know this because EGTB can show many positions where being a pawn up isn't enough in an endgame) and because skilled players are unlikely to blunder in symmetrical positions with no potential threats, it's likely a perfect game has been played.

That would mean a player chose every single move that neither Stockfish or “God” could exploit to force a win. 

It may have happened. I find it unlikely. We have no idea if that ever happened.

An annoying thing for humans is, some positions which are 0.00 are really hard to play.

So we can be making many practical errors over the course of a game, that make it more likely we'll lose, even though we're not technically screwing up yet, at least from the 32 man EGTB perspective.

I only mention this because all this talk of perfect play is making chess sound easy when in reality it just takes 1 move to lose, and it's really easy to make that 1 move

Oh I play a lot of gambits and wild openings (fried liver attack, Evans gambit) and also lines of the French that the analyzer doesn’t like.

But my opponents are as inept at chess as I am 🤪

My primary openings are QGD and the Spanish (Spanish with both colors).

So I can play pretty well when it's classical and solid like that (by which I mean the engine isn't yelling at me every move).

But I'll also mix it up sometimes. I'm trying out the benko in tournaments now for example. Some of those positions I'm really surprised... sometimes the engine is saying every move (by both of us) is a big mistake

The game can either end in a win or draw. Is there a third option?

Tables-up maybe?

In tournament play there's a double forfeit option a tournament director can do...

I forgot when they use it though.

Not that this matter to the discussion.

  It’s rather simple: you can only pronounce a game perfect after you checked all the lines. If you do not check all the lines, then your proclamation of a perfect move or perfect game has no meaning. In your flawed example, 3. Bb5 was deemed ‘perfect’ as part of a perfect game. Do you know that 3. Bb5 does not end in a forced loss? 

  You do not, Kasparov doesn’t know, the strongest engine doesn’t know. If you don’t know, then 3. Bb5 can lose by force, in all the lines, meaning with the best defense. On the other hand, 3. d4 may win by force, with the best defense possible.

  If that is a possible result, do you understand that 3. Bb5 may not be a perfect move—if it loses with best defense and there is another move that wins with best defensive lines? 

  Same goes for the moves preceding 3. Bb5. In order to label them ‘perfect’ you must make sure they don’t end up in a forced loss and other moves don’t result in a forced win at the same time.

 Now, apart from having difficulties intellectually grabbing this concept, you also have difficulties understanding what an error or even a mistake is.

  Unless it misses a forced mate, like Kramnik’s stupid blunder against Deep Fritz, what you consider ‘error’ or even a ‘mistake’ may turn out to forcefully win. In order to eliminate that possibility, you would have to check all the lines, in order to know that for sure. 

  You can speculate, which is what you do, claim the consensus of others, but that doesn’t mean anything, as I’m sure there are others who speculate and at the same time are unaware they are speculating.

  It doesn’t matter if the game is short or long: your whole lack of logic is based on the fact that actual theory is sound. But actual theory may prove to be a sham, nobody knows the final outcome/picture. We gathered a lot of speculations in this total darkness and then knuckleheads think they’ve got something other than speculations.

 Who knows for sure that Ruy Lopez doesn’t lose by force? Does anyone? If nobody knows, why are you making silly statements about the beginning moves of Ruy Lopez being perfect?

 Knowledge is not important here: any moron can accumulate decades of experience, analysis, all that. What matters here is the ability to watch your thinking, every step and turn it takes, to see why it thinks the way it does. It takes diligence to do that, as opposed to being lazy and look the other way thinking: I know, you don’t, end of story. Classic indolence. After all, you can’t teach an old dogs new tricks. It lacks alertness.

  As for the starting position, we’ve been over this and you haven’t paid attention: it might as well be that it it’s a total zuzgwang: whoever moves first, loses. Who knows?

troy7915, you just

You as well, repeatedly, but to no avail it seems.

  Let me stop you right there.

 Sir, take a deep breath. Now look again. 

  This is the part where your intellectual abilities have failed. This is the essence of what’s being said to you for several pages now. You’ve missed this essence and so you missed everything else, and thus went into irrelevant points. Sir, it has nothing to do with you, or any other, which is why I mentioned Kasparov, it is about logic.

 Nobody cares with what move you beat what national master. It is irrelevant, keep it to yourself. It is irrelevant that the GMs believe the same thing you do. Not relevant.

  Ok, so look again at your last phrase. That is the only meaning: that you believe that particular game is perfect game.  Or others for that matter. Now stop right there. I do not believe it is not a perfect game.  

  Let me repeat that: I do not believe that is not a perfect game. No one has said that. That is your mind assuming.  Moving from one assumption to another.

 Once again, I do no believe that game is not perfect. Right? I do not.

  Now, let’s continue: I also do not believe that game to be perfect. Again, I do not believe that game to be perfect. Right? So let’s put them together now:

  I do not believe that game is not perfect, nor do I believe it is a perfect game. Or the other way:

  I do not believe that game is perfect, nor do I believe that game is not perfect.

  So where does that leave me? I do not formulate any beliefs here: it might be perfect, it might not. If all the lines before and after 3. Bb5 result in a win for White or draw and there is no forced win for White at all, then it is a perfect game. If Black wins by force and there are other first three moves that win for White by force, or at leadst force a draw, then it is not a perfect game.

  So now let’s go back to your reasoning. You believe that was a perfect game. Bingo! That’s what we’ve been saying all along. It’s your belief that it was a perfect game.

 Apparently you have a short memory for a bit later on you repeat that you know it is a perfect game. So first you say you believe that, then you claim you know that.

  Either a short memory or you are confused about the two meanings. Sir, a belief is where you don’t know but nevertheless believe. Whereas when you know belief is not necessary, it doesn’t come up, you just know for a fact. It’s not a belief, it’s a fact. 

 From the very beginning I have told you that there is no problem presenting your theories as beliefs. The problem occurs when you are trying to pass those beliefs  as facts.

 After all, you said it yourself: most GMs believe the result is a draw. It’s a belief, which means they don’t really know, that’s the very nature of a belief. And they can believe anything they like, just as nobody’s stopping you from believing whatever strikes your fancy. 

  Just don’t present your personal belief as a fact, or present others’ beliefs to support this pretension of a fact, when it is, by your own admission ( see above, in your post ), a mere belief.

  Now, you don’t have to analyze all the possible variants. But then you cannot call a game ‘perfect’. If you’re not doing the analysis, then you are limited to beliefs. Nothing wrong with having only one option, we’re only human, but do not pass a belief as a fact.

  So what can be said about all this? Factually, matter-of-fact. What is the fact here? The fact is, as it was noted repeatedly, that we don’t know. 

 Without understanding this statement, you’ve jumped up and down screaming ‘Speak for yourself. I do know.’, which was repeated several times. Then in your later post, just above, you say what we’ve been saying all along: ‘ I believe it is a perfect game.’  We’ve been trying to make you aware of just that, which, of course, contradicts the ‘ I know’ part.

  So the fact of the matter is that we don’t know. We do not know if it’s a perfect game, we do not know it is not a perfect game. We do not know. That is the only fact here.

 PS: When I said ‘darkness’, I didn’t refer to you, but to chess in general. In the beginning there was total darkness, no opening theory. And throughout centuries, certain ideas have emerged, and variations began to develop. From nothing, which is darkness. But whatever point we have reached, they are just assumptions and beliefs. They tend to hold in the short run, but who knows? It may turn out they are wrong.

 Again, we don’t really know. The only fact, at this point. As for Kasparov, I’m not assuming anything. He actually admitted chess is a matter of beliefs, ultimately—meaning from a human’s capabilities’s perspective. Anybody with a bit of logic would see it the same way: you don’t have to be World Champion to have a bit of logic.

  The fact remains: we don’t know, at this point in time. I understand you’re not happy with this fact, that you’re disappointed and so you want to move from it in the direction of some belief or another. Be my guest. 

  But then don’t get confused and artificially transform that belief into a fact. It’s still a non-fact, at this point in time.

Ponz said "I can pronounce a game perfect without checking all the lines." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that's actually what was said. So if I may paraphrase USArmy, "I can pronounce the defendant guilty without checking all the evidence"

I guess I just cant make the leap of saying I know something without actually knowing it. For me, it's just a lot easier (and honest) to say I believe it rather than say I know it. What I do KNOW is that I would much rather have Troy and USArmy on a jury. I would not want someone on a jury who has his mind made up (and wont change it) before all the evidence is submitted.