Will computers ever solve chess?

I think that engines will never solve certain smositions because they lack smositional understanding. However, positions are much easier than smositions.

I love this way too much, lol

Make a google (image) search with "smositional". 

Chess.com should be your only source for smositional chess.

You came into a disagreement with ponz111.  He claims he can KNOW if a game is perfect, that he knows thousands of perfect games have been played, and that he himself has played several.

If you disagree with these assertions, then I have no disagreement with you.  

Ok then we don't disagree

I only say it's likely ponz has played some perfect games.

Really apple running enlightenment in order. Pancakes.

Don't worry, chess lubbas. Everything's gonna be ok.

 Well at least the objective part is solved and we are in agreement, but in my opinion it is incredibly unlikely he has played perfect games. 

There are 1 x 10^120 possible game variations.  That’s a “conservative“ estimate by one mathematician.  The statistical likelihood he has played the perfect move on every move from start to finish is off the charts. 

If his opponent were doing his best to beat ponz, then I think ponz has not played a perfect game. If both of them were content with a draw, then I think he probably has.

I've had at least 2 tournament games like this. One where I was physically sick (so I wanted a dull and fast game) and my opponent was rated 200 points lower (so he didn't mind).

And one where if we drew, we both won $50. So neither of us tried to make it a fighting game.

 But playing in a manner that is content with a draw is not de facto playing perfect moves, in fact I think it makes playing perfect moves unlikely. 

 If the desired outcome of the game for both sides is to draw, I can already tell you all of the perfect moves in order. 

1. Draw by agreement. 

If playing for a draw means playing to maintain symmetry and keeping threats and contact at a minimum (both players are very defensive minded) then an EGTB would likely say every position was objectively drawn, and this is what we're calling perfect.

The exchange french, the exchange slav, and a few other opening variations are infamous for this when both players want to draw.

In the recent candidates tournament we've had some Berlin games like this.

In the last few WCC some games have been like this too.

This one even (nearly) ends in symmetry

Very clever

But some top tournaments don't allow a draw by agreement until move 30.

So they literally come up with variations that are more or less aimed at trading everything off by move 30, then they shake hands.

---

As for my games, agreeing to a draw before the game is played is considered unethical. It can effect the prizes and standings of other players. So I'd never do that... but my opponents and I tacitly offer the draw with the moves we choose.

Of course sometimes this goes horribly wrong... one player will think it's a tacit draw offer, and the other is actually playing for a win... the exchange French is also known for mishaps like this.

If we agree that Hal (the computer of the future that solved chess), would have beat any one of those players, then you cannot say anyone of those players played perfect chess.  Had they chosen Hal’s perfect (and better) moves, they would have had a better outcome. 

As I wrote early on in that post:

"an EGTB would likely say every position was objectively drawn, and this is what we're calling perfect."

Again, this is the difference between a perfect game and a perfect player.

 Just a couple of points here. EGTB  is a poor measure for deeming a game perfect, which isn’t so much a fault as it is we have no tools today to determine a perfect game. 

 But also important is not the EGTB assessment  of a single position, but rather: did it deem every move made by both players from start to finish to be the best move?  

 Remember we’re talking about entire games here not positions. 

 And even if it determined every position from start to finish was drawn, let’s say on move 20 White had a candidate move that would’ve been assessed +1.16, but instead chose a move that was assessed 0.08.  Did he play the perfect move? 

I'm using EGTB as shorthand for a 32 man EGTB.

Remember a 32 man EGTB has the true evaluation for every single possible position in chess (about 10^42 IIRC).

Of course the EG part of the designation is a little silly, because by the time you have a 32-man EGTB we're not talking about the endgame anymore, but I use EGTB to remind you that the only evaluations really are "mate in __" and "draw" and that every possible position has been evaluated and stored.

---

And yes, now, for the 3rd time, I'm telling you if every single position in the game were evaluated as drawn, then we would say it's a perfect game (under our current definition of perfect).

Yes, under the more usual definition of perfect, a player will play to win, and never make a mistake. This is much trickier to make a definition for since playing for a win often means playing an objectively less-than-best move (because it creates more practical problems for the opponent).

Taking into account conventional engine evaluations this would lead to a much more pleasing definition of perfect.

But it's also a lot harder to properly define.

First of all, moves that are difficult for one opponent may be easier for another. How do we quantify this?

Secondly if we only go by "difficulty" then there's the problem of games won due to purposefully giving yourself a losing position (like some king's gambit variations) but for the purpose of greatly increasing the chance of a blunder from your opponent.