Will computers ever solve chess?

Yeah that really is some low lying fruit.

Hey, ponz111, prove 7 is a prime number without using any math.

The definition of "prime number" ensures i am correct. There are all kinds of tables of prime numbers which inclued "7" as a prime number and i am willing to believe those thousands of tables are correct.

I know Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system. I am taking the word of people in the field who say this.

So in other words, you think it’s very likely a draw, but you can’t KNOW it’s a draw until chess is solved. 👍

Glad you’re on board now.

The math was done in order to create those tables. 

Regarding what some people say to the effect that the number of possible positions in chess is far far greater than all the billions of positions of chess in actual played games.  This i agree with.

But when some people add "and this means we know nothing" that is the followup i do not agree with.

Chess has been played  by  humans who have 85 billion neurons in their brains. These neurons connect with each other to make a person's brain a very strong computer.

It will be noted  that as a general rule people do not make  random moves. However if you look at all the positions of chess--99.999999% would not be relevant as in those positions the decision is easy as to knowing the final result of the game. 

There is a correlation of how people play chess from the time chess was invented to the present time. [they no not move their knights back and forth and forget the develpment of other pieces and pawns for example or they do not  give up their queen for nothing is another example]  all good players know this without ever having solved chess.

So when i say that billions of chess games have been played and noone has ever come up with a game where one side won without the other side making an error--that is evidence--it is not the entire evidence but it is part of a whole lot of circumstantial evidence--when taken together prove my assertion about chess being a draw. 

It is not necessary to solve chess to know chess is a draw. To give another example..regarding checkers--for decades the top players knew the game of checkers was a draw. They knew this even though they had played only a very small fraction of all the games played. They knew this so well that in checker tournaments [with the best players]  the first move or the first couple of moves in a game had to be "picked" for he contestants as otherwise all the games would end in a draw.

Why did these players take for a fact that checkers was a draw when neither side make an error?  Because they had a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that checkers  was a draw and when the circumstantial evidence was considered it was enough.

Now as it turns out--checkers was solved. Were these very strong checker players correct?  YES they were correct and the  solving of checkers proved 99.99% true  they were correct.

 Was it just a coincidence that that dozens of the very top players had decided checkers was a draw? NO! They actually knew something about checkers!!!

Do we know anything 100%. The correct answer to this is "no" there is always the possibility that we are figments of some entity's mind and we do not know it.

So anyone who says solving chess is proving chess has a certain result is in error of not considering that we cannot know anything 100%   [if he means "proving" has to be 100%]

However, for practical reasons we live our lifes without worrying about being 100% certain of everything--we consider 99.99% certain and 100% certain as being equal as far as living our daily life.         

NOPE to me "to know" is to be 99.99% sure and this does not require chess being solved. 

You can  not use "in other words" for what i actually post as you are usually not accurate in this usage. 

Nobody is really 100% absolutely sure about anything.

Another piece of evidence about chess being a draw is that the vast majority of grandmasters believe chess is a draw. [and they know something about chess even if some low rated players disparage those grandmasters and their knowledge.]

This is only one piece of evidence but when all the evidence is compiled--it is enough for me to conclude chess is a draw. 

Another piece of evidence is my own knowlege of chess.

 This is only one piece of many circumstantial evidences but it is convincing for me!

Dewey Defeats Truman. Knowing it's true is enough to pronounce it's true. Especially if you consider the vast majority of opinions and your own personal knowledge of the situation. All the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing.

Anyone with just a little common sense knows in a very close political race sometimes the wrong person is announced as winning. This even happened with Bush.

Here is another piece of evidence. Over that past 100 years the top players have gotten stronger and stronger.

Looking at the World Championship matches over a long period of time--you will see more and more draws.

This is also true of just very strong players--playing each other.

This data is a little skewed as we have been making it tougher on the top players to play with little or few or no mistakes because of the faster time limits. 

But Kasparov knows chess far better, and says otherwise.

Here is another piece of evidence. Over the years as the best chess engines have gotten stronger--there have been more and more draws.

Here is another piece of evidence. There have been thousands of chess books published. Many on various openings. There is only one that i know of which tried to claim White had an advantage--enough of an advantage to translate that into a win.

[and that was later refuted]

Here is another piece of evidence. It is the flawed thinking of some who state it cannot be determined that chess is a draw without solving chess.

One poster kept insisting that it is impossible to play a perfect game without chess being solved. i explained how this was not true but time after time he kept insisting he was correct and i was wrong on this particular subject.

Here is another piece of evidence. It is the Ad hominem attacks on me by some players. This indicates a fundamental lack of reasoning ability.

Not at all.  Alpha Zero vs. Stockfish and the most recent TCEC championships both run counter to your argument.  

Here is another piece of evidence. It is the bragging by one player that he will not consider all the evidence. This shows a lack willingness to think  clearly regarding this subject.

I said it is a general trend over the years. If one chess engine is much stronger than another chess engine--then the stronger chess engine/machine/whatever you  want to call it--will sometimes win.

However when chess enginess are closely matched there are more and more draws.

Yes, those two things you mentioned may run counter to my argument--that is why i said "over the years".