Will computers ever solve chess?

Yes, I’m trying to “ignore” it by responding to it directly. 🤪

YOU: “It only applies if it is the SOLE argument for a statement. As you well know i have given many arguments for my statement that chesss is a draw if neither side makes a mistake.”

Whether or not an argument is a logical fallacy has NOTHING to do with any other arguments you make. 

YOU: “Another piece of evidence about chess being a draw is that the vast majority of grandmasters believe chess is a draw.“

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

Do you understand what he’s saying, ponz? 

 It’s really rather simple. I’ve been saying it, too. Not only what others are saying is irrelevant, but when an argument is illogical you simply don’t bring it up. Never ever. You leave it out of the discussion. That argument has no value whatsoever. 

 So, in itself invoking others to validate one’s own idiosyncrasies fails to make those idiosyncrasies into facts. In combination with other arguments or in itself, invoking others’ perception is meaningless.

 This also relates to clarity: it is only when clarity is missing that one brings others to validate one’s perception.

  When everything is crystal-clear, like a tree in front of oneself, 99.99% of the planet can see it as a cow, yet one’s perception as a tree will not suffer the smallest degree of alteration.

 That crystal-clear perception stands on its own.

USArmy  i got my definition from Rational Wikipedia which states:

"Argumentum ad popular is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true SOLELY [note this word] because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but the truth is not a function of their popularity EXCEPT [note this word] where other factors ensure that the popularity is related to truth.

What are some other factors?  That the vast majority of grandmasters believe it is true that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. [ not just a majority--a vast majority]

 That grandmasters have far more chess knowledge and understanding than the average person.

 That in the history of chess there has  not been one game discovered [out of billions of gamess] where a game was won without one side making an error. Grandmasters know this.

That grandmasters in their games against other grandmasters have a lot of draws.

 There are more more things to consider other than the popularity of this notion.

You have conveniently left out the words "sole" and then "except" 

It’s pularity is NOT related to truth! 

Legitimate use[edit]
When the truth value of the proposition is really a function of the popularity. This can arguably be the case in grammar (most native speakers think a certain construction is grammatical, thus it is grammatical), and matters of convention and etiquette.

There is NO relation between the opinions of GM’s and the outcome of solved chess.

USArmy here is an example of some of your reasoning:

Posts 4610 and posts 4614 and posts 4626  I will give the exact wording of post 4624...

"You claim thousands of perfect games have been played. This means humans are capable of playing perfect games. and since computers can lose to each other, and since humans can occasionally play perfect games, that means humans can occasionally beat the most monstrous chess engine we have."

Sorry but your logic is flawed--it would only mean that humans could occasionally DRAW the most monstrous chess engine we have.

Wrong.

Engines beat Engines

If humans occasionally play PERFECT chess that would mean humans can occasionally beat engines.

There is no better than perfect.

USArmy here is another example of your reasoning: This was posted at least twice per posts 4664 and posts 4737

  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.

 This was stated at least twice by you.

Sorry but any chess player can play a perfect game without a super computer even existing.  And certainly any chess player can play a perfect game without a super computer evalulating each move of that game.

To give an anology. Many checker players played perfect checker games before checkers was solved. After checkers was solved they could look back and confirm they played perfect games.

you are completely ignoring what i said about circumstantial evidence and you are completely ignoring the examples i gave of circumstantial evidence.

  Regardless of the definition, it is still meaningless to bring up others’perception in order to validate your own, in combination with other factors or not.

 It is false, in itself. If you clearly see it is false, you don’t bring it up. In any scenario.

No that’s twice you failed to comprehend what’s being said. Also many more times, like when you failed to understand what RationalWiki was actually saying. 

I continue to clarify and you continue to ignore it.

YES, a human can get LUCKY, pick up the pieces and just happen to play a full, perfect game. I mean, who doesn’t know that? It’s theoretically possible but I doubt it’s happened (setting aside a player makes only a few lucky moves and draws by agreement). 

  I am making sure you understand this one point before moving on to others: if you clearly see something is false you don’t bring it up. If your see something as true you don’t care how others are seeing it, so you don’t bring up that angle.

If someone tells you your evidence is doodoo they’re not ignoring it. 

You only clarified this one after i pointed out your poor reasoning.

[and you cannot set aside the laws of chess where two players can agree to a draw after only a few moves]

ok, i dare you to post what i said about circumstantial evidence [with examples] and show me how i am wrong.

You mean when you failed to comprehend what you were reading? Again? And again?

ALL the top engines lose to each other. Stockfish, Komodo... they are ALL beatable (but not by humans).

If a human is capable of occasionally playing PERFECT chess, a human should be capable of occasionally beating the top engines.

I don't think that perfect games are all that rare. There's a right move and a lot of bad moves. If both players play the right moves, then it's a perfect game.

Perfect would be the absolute, objectively best move on every move. Perfect would destroy any engine we have today.

Yes, they will. In fact, they already have. As dictated by the computer which uses homeomorphisms of x-manifolds, where x is the relation of the number of moves to the totient function, chess has been solved. Black is the winner. Here is the game of the best possible moves:

and here it states that white's position is resignable.