Will computers ever solve chess?

lol

For crying out loud. Is “the most monstrous engine we have” AMONG the top engines, yes or no? So if someone can beat the “the most monstrous engine we have” does that not ALSO mean the person the person can beat all the top engines?

You’re grasping at straws. 

- We both agree it’s literally impossible to play better than perfect.

- All the top engines (a subset of which is the most monstrous engine we have) have been beat by other engines, which means they’re beatable.

- Which means they CAN be beat by perfect play.

- And since you say perfect play HAS been played by humans “thousands of times” that means humans CAN (on rare occasions) beat all the top engines, including “the most monstrous engine we have.”

That's not how we defined perfect play though. It merely required that the eval (as seen by a 32 man EGTB) never change.

Perfect isn't the capacity to win/draw in every scenario. It's the difference between a perfect game and a perfect player.

 Honestly I’m not sure what that is, but if it isn’t a literally perfect analysis then by definition it isn’t perfect, nor is it relevant to the discussion of the chest being solved. 

 If you want to redefine perfect as something that’s actually less than perfect, then that changes the entire conversation and a different word should be used. 

  Despite the game, you have a serious intellectual handicap.

 Logically speaking, you are unable to see that potentially, as a theoretical possibility, the Ruy Lopez can ultimately lose by force. Or any other opening you may be infatuated with. The fact that it didn’t happen  has nothing to do with how strong Ruy Lopez is, but with how far anybody is ( human or computer) from analyzing all the variants in this particular opening.

 Without any reason whatsoever, one illogical brain decided to call Ruy Lopez’s first three moves ‘perfect’. Why? No particular reason, apart from a whim.

EGTB = endgame tablebase. For any position it gives either "mate in __" or "draw." It contains every possible arrangement of pieces for that number and below. So a 6 man EGTB (link below) references a database with every possible arrangement of 6 pieces or less.

http://www.k4it.de/index.php?lang=en&topic=egtb

We could define "perfect player" as someone who additionally plays the most difficult moves, but that gets tricky. A 32 man EGTB is usually what people think of as having solved chess.

How dare you! Don't hurt my feelings!

 I’m talking about complete games. A human can certainly find “perfect” moves in very specific, simplified positions. An obvious example is where only one move is mate in one.  That has no bearing on someone playing an actual complete, perfect game. 

Like we talked about earlier, it's pretty easy to keep the game always a draw. That's the sense in which the game is perfect.

Saying the person would have to account for every possible variation is talking about a perfect player, not a perfect game.

(Yes we can't be sure the e.g. exchange french game I posted earlier is perfect, but IMO it likely is)

 I mean, it's a somewhat unintuitive and silly definition of a perfect game, I agree.

Colloquially, and in practical play, we would mean perfect as something more akin to posing the most difficult problems for your opponent at every opportunity while also not making any mistakes.

I’m not following. A game that ends in a draw is a “perfect“ game? 

 A perfect player would be a player who plays perfect every time, which would essentially be God. 

 A perfect game is a game where every move was perfect. 

Ok, but what do we mean by perfect? I thought earlier we agreed a perfect move was one that didn't change the evaluation.

 Well, in reality what is objectively the best move. Not the best move that humans or the top engines would evaluate, what is actually objectively the best move. 

What ponz111 asserted is that perfect merely means a player made no mistakes “that could change the theoretical outcome of the game.“

That’s a distinction without a difference. 

Read the forum. Unlike here, where anyone can post anything they want with no provision for expert review, the computer science forum is subject to peer-review.

 chessbase-->blunder check

Ok, but in many positions all legal moves are "perfect" right?

Black to move. All legal moves draw.

Now a human would probably play Ke6 because this allows him to maintain opposition. This is the type of move that's required to draw (only move that draws) once the position has been shifted up two ranks. But in the current position all legal moves are "perfect" would you agree?

(Below diagram, only Ke8 will draw)

 Humans and computers can find some mistakes by analysis. To borrow my earlier example, if someone misses mate in one, that’s an obvious mistake.  But neither humans nor computers can possibly find every mistake in a game.  It’s theoretically possible that in the kings gambit, 2. f4 loses by force, and black has mate in 104 with best play by white. 

 We just don’t know. We have no possible way to know if a perfect game has ever been played. 

Goh,  I’ve already repeatedly said humans can find perfect moves in some positions. That’s a far cry from playing an entire perfect game, where every move is perfect. 

ya

they also can solve chess like humans

hi