Will computers ever solve chess?

  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.  I responded to what you posted not guessing what you might have meant. 

 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. I did not say i beat a national master. I was responding to the specific move 3. d4 and what was said about that move. And yes the fact that just about all the GMs believe what i do IS relevant as they know a heck of a lot about chess.

  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.  Here i do not understand this last sentence--the sentence is ambiguous. You do not believe WHAT is not a perfect game???

  Let me repeat that: I do not believe that is not a perfect game.YOUR sentence is ambigous you do not believe WHAT is a perfect game?

No one has said that. again your sentence is ambiguous--no one has said WHAT?

That is your mind assuming.  Moving from one assumption to another. i cannot respond to this as you are posting in ambiguous sentences. If you clarify then i can respond.

 Once again, I do no believe that game is not perfect. Right? I do not. What game?? I have no idea what game you refer to???

  Now, let’s continue: I also do not believe that game to be perfect. What game?? I have no idea what game you refer to??

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

Put what together games? your statements??

  I do not believe that game is not perfect, nor do I believe it is a perfect game. Or the other way:  It would be better if you would not use ambiguous sentences and mention what game you refer to?

  I do not believe that game is perfect, nor do I believe that game is not perfect. You keep referring to some game that you do not think is perfect but i have no idea what game you refer to?  

  So where does that leave me? I do not formulate any beliefs here: it might be perfect, it might not. iT leaves you with several ambiguous sentences.

If all the lines before and after 3. Bb5  is this the game you refer to?? 1. e4  e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5??  Here i will guess that is the game you refer to...

result in a win for White or draw  Sorry but the lines can only refer to a draw or not draw. not both

and there is no forced win for White at all, then it is a perfect game. The game is a draw as there is no forced win for White OR BLACK and also because the game was agreed drawn.

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.  i know the senarios for a perfect game. A perfect game is a game where neither side makes a mistake which would change the theoretical result of the game.

  So now let’s go back to your reasoning. You believe that was a perfect game. here i am going to assume you mean the game ending with 3. Bb5

Bingo! That’s what we’ve been saying all along. It’s your belief that it was a perfect game.  Actually you have been saying that i was wrong in claiming the game ending in 3.Bb5 is 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. One can know something and also believe something. For example, I know the sun will rise next Tuesday. I also believe the sun will rise next Tuesday.

  Either a short memory or you are confused about the two meanings. Sir, a belief is where you don’t know but nevertheless believe.  Apparently you did not bother to look up the definition of "belief" in the dictionary. A "belief" is something accepted or considered as true. There is no "you don't know it is true" in that definition!! I believe my clock will soon

 read 1 AM. I also know that my clock will soon read 1 AM.

Look up the definition of "belief" in the dictionary.

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.  it is a fact that you do not know the definition of "belief"

 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.  Sorry but you do not know the definition of "belief"  A "belief" can also be a fact.

 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,  WRONG  you do not have the correct definition of "believe"  look it up in the dictionary.

that’s the very nature of a belief. you do not know what is a "belief" as you had a wrong definition of "belief"

And they can believe anything they like, just as nobody’s stopping you from believing whatever strikes your fancy. not sure who you mean by "they" in your sentence here?

I know nobody is stopping me from believing whatever strikes my fancy--i never said otherwise. What i have been saying is that a couple of posters are telling me that my beliefs are wrong. [and they usually give reasons why they think this and then i counter with reasons i think i am correct in my beliefs.

  Just don’t present your personal belief as a fact, Why not if i believe it is 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. WOW!! you do not know the definition of "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,  sure i can and i have explained why.

then you are limited to beliefs. again you need to look in the dictionary for the meaning of "beliefs"

Nothing wrong with having only one option, we’re only human, but do not pass a belief as a fact.  As i have mentioned--a belief can be a fact.

I believe Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system. It is also a fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system.

  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.  you need to read the definition of "belief" and rethink all of this.

 Without understanding this statement, you’ve jumped up and down screaming ‘Speak for yourself. I do know.’, i did not jump up and down screaming. i am a very quiet person

which was repeated several times. the statement was repeated not screaming.

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. Actually it does not contradict--it is just that you did not have the correct definition of "believe"

  So the fact of the matter is that we don’t know. We don't know what? Please be more specific?

We do not know if it’s a perfect game, if what is a perfect game? do you mean the game ending in 3. Bb5?  I agree "we" do not know it is a perfect game as "we" includes you. However i know that game is a perfect game.

we do not know it is not a perfect game. We do not know. That is the only fact here. The main fact here is that this whole posting was based on you not knowing the definition of "belief" "believed" etc.

 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.

He said that as well. He said he knows it, then he said he believes it. exactly knows it and believes it are synonyms. 

He doesn’t understand the difference between actually knowing something and mere believing that something might be true.  are you referring to Kasparov?

 He also had the impression it’s a clash of beliefs:where do you get this?

he believes that was a perfect game while others believe it was not a perfect game.are you talking about the game where Kasparov did not see the pawn capture?? Where did Kasparov say he had been playiing a perfect game??

In reality, it is a belief that a game was perfect trying to clash with the fact that we don’t know whether that was a perfect or imperfect game.  Where did Kasparow mention he had been playing a perfect game???

 A belief never clashes with a fact, only with a counter-belief. Well this is not always true--you can just look at religion to realize that sometimes belief clashes with facts--however for the most part belief does not clash with facts.

  Since there is no counter-belief, the only confusion is generated by mistaking a belief for a fact.  Sure there often is counter belief.  However you are not understanding the definition of "belief" are you too stubborn to look it up in the dictionary?

 This should remove the existing confusion at once.No it does not as you are too stubborn to look up the word "belief" in the dictionary. Nowhere in the definition of "belief" does it say one cannot have "belief" about something and "knowledge" about something at the same 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.yes, that is part of what i said--i also said it is impossible to check ALL the lines [millions of lines]

  So if I may paraphrase USArmy, "I can pronounce the defendant guilty without checking all the evidence"  This is absolutely a stupid sentence--it prejudices without hearing the evidence. It is a statement someone with a closed mind would make.

I guess I just cant make the leap of saying I know something without actually knowing it.

There is a big problem with this sentence is i never took "the leap of saying i know something without actually knowing it. In other words you are using a strawman argument! 

For me, it's just a lot easier (and honest) to say I believe it rather than say I know it. Do you know the definition of "believe"??? One of the synonyms of "believe" is "know" Look it up in the dictionary.  One can "believe" something and also "know" the same thing. Example:  "I believe my wife is asleep right now" "I know my wife is asleep right now" both statements are true.

What I do KNOW is that I would much rather have Troy and USArmy on a jury. i sure would not. Troy does not even know what the  word "beliefs" means and ARMy has made several obviously untrue statements.

I would not want someone on a jury who has his mind made up (and wont change it) Actually this describes YOU!! and i will quote you from the top of this posting: "I can pronouce the defendant guilty without checking all the evidence."

Your own statement shows you are someone who has made his mind up and won't change it!!!!!! 

"

before all the evidence is submitted.

Here Gary Kasparov is acknowledging two possible outcomes to chess being solved (forced win or draw from move 1), while opining chess will not be solved using current technology. Thank you, i read the whole article and more or less agree with Kasparov. [he did not anticipate Alpha Zero however] 

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/432043

Another group postulated that the game would be solved, i.e., a mathematically conclusive way for a computer to win from the start would be found. Wow! was that group wrong!!

(Or perhaps it would prove that a game of chess played in the best possible way always ends in a draw.) Perhaps a real version of HAL 9000 would simply announce move 1.e4, with checkmate in, say, 38,484 moves. These gloomy predictions have not come true, nor will they ever come to pass. Chess is far too complex to be definitively solved with any technology we can conceive of today. i agree with this.

However, our looked-down-upon cousin, checkers, or draughts, suffered this fate quite recently thanks to the work of Jonathan Schaeffer at the University of Alberta and his unbeatable program Chinook. yes, checkers was solved as a draw. I will note that a bunch of perfect checkers games happened BEFORE checkers was solved. 

I will note in that whole article I DID NOT SEE Kasparov stating chess is a matter of belief.

--------> Who knows for sure that Ruy Lopez doesn’t lose by force

God only knows.

Embrace the faith and all your doubts will have an answer.

Here you again do not understand the definition of "belief" "a belief is something accepted or considered as true."

There is nothing in that definition which says we cannot know something is true and also believe something is true.

I believe my chess set is in my family room. I also know my chess set is in my family room.

"believe" means to take as real. Obviously one can take a fact as real.

This almost has more comments than DESTINYS thread OMG 

As for Kasparov, he was analyzing his games with another GM, who wrote several opening books, and who appeared very sharp in the sense that he appeared to know what Kasparov was about to say about the game even before he said it. 

 In fact, on one of the games, the GM, not knowing what Kasparov had actually played at a certain point, he asked him if he had captured a pawn. Visibly taken aback, he honestly asked: ‘ What pawn?’ After the GM points out the pawn in question, Kasparov candidly  confesses that he never saw that capture, and so he never even considered it! Which no doubt created an effect in the opponent who got intimidated by Kasparov’s aggression, thinking he was not after a mere pawn! Incidentally, he ( the opponent ) lost the game. But in fact Kasparov never saw the capture!

  So in effect, he turned to the GM and said: ‘ I have to go analyze this move.’ ( meaning with his computer) So he left. When he came back another day he said: ‘After analyzing it with my computer, I can now conclude that the best move in that position was the capture of that pawn’!

 Now, analyzing another game with the same GM, a famous game with Karpov where the latter had a chance to win the World title if he played more aggressively—but didn’t and now the opportunity was with Kasparov—the GM asked him: ‘ Why did you play ...f5 ( with the black pieces) ‘? Kasparov answered, a little embarrassed, ‘ Why? I, I, just played the it’! The GM then insisted: ‘ Did you calculate certain lines that made you play that move?’ Kasparov answered promptly: ‘ No, no calculation. I just played it. I believed I had to play it, to open the position and then see what happens.’ And he quickly added: ‘ Isn’t all of our chess based on beliefs?’ The GM fell silent.

 But again, anybody can see that. Perhaps the better player you are the more honest with yourself you become, but honesty goes beyond just the game of chess.

ok ty He was analyzing one move where he made a mistake and the asked that question. He was stating he did not see a pawn capture as he was thinking of opening up the position and then he asked that question?

Sometimes when you are thinking of doing something in a chess game {in this case opening up the position-you will miss a good move and that is what happened here.

But remember, what you believe is also what you think you know. "believe"and "know" are synomyms.

 Realizing you’re only going to find a very creative way to interpret what he said like you do everything else, I will give it a shot anyway. 

Another group postulated that the game would be solved, i.e., a mathematically conclusive way for a computer to win from the start would be found. (Or perhaps it would prove that a game of chess played in the best possible way always ends in a draw.) Perhaps a real version of HAL 9000 would simply announce move 1.e4, with checkmate in, say, 38,484 moves. These gloomy predictions have not come true, nor will they ever come to pass. Chess is far too complex to be definitively solved with any technology we can conceive of today. However, our looked-down-upon cousin, checkers, or draughts, suffered this fate quite recently thanks to the work of Jonathan Schaeffer at the University of Alberta and his unbeatable program Chinook.ponz in green--i agree with what is stated above there is a group which made wrong predictions. /this is nothing new. i also agree that chess has not been solved. [never said otherwise]

In other words, the final outcome of a perfectly played game from start to finish, has not been proven.It has not been solved. there is a difference between"proven" and "solved" nowhere in the above did this erroreous group say anything about "proven" they used the term "solved"

by the way checkers has been found to be "solved". Also it has been proven that there were a bunch of perfect checkers games played BEFORE checkers had been solved.

Even though the theoretical outcome of a game of chess has not been "solved" this does not mean that players have not played a perfect game.[same as was for checkers]

Nobody knows whether it ends in a draw or a win. 

A couple of you are making the mistake of thinking the ONLY way to determine if chess is a draw is to "solve" chess and that is where you are wrong.

And to top it off--a couple of you are so closed minded that you have declared you will not even look at the evidence--other than the evidence you want to use.  This is a classic example of being closed minded!!!

And to tell the truth--with your attitude that you will not consider all of the evidence--You are really unworthy of any kind of true debate or even discussion!