Will computers ever solve chess?

never play 4.e5 on 3.Nf3

This is unlikely for logical reasons.

To claim chess is a forced win is to claim the starting position is zugzwang.

We know that the likelihood of zugzwang is e.g. proportional to the contact between the peices (both direct attacks and influencing the same empty squares) and inversly proportional to the number of legal moves available to both sides.

Maybe we could throw symmetry in there too.

We know this both through experience and with apriori logic.

Read your post #4715 in this topic on page 236.

You even say in the context of chess being solved we'll set aside positions which have better "assessments" but lead to the same result.

Now you're saying in the context of chess being solved this is weird.

I'm willing to go with whatever, but it's difficult when you seem to be changing your position.

Anyway, we seem to be going in circles a little bit, so I'll try to be more explicit with what I'm saying.

1. Chess is likely a draw with best play from both sides.
     a. I use concepts of symmetry and contact to argue for this
     b. I use draw rates increasing as skill of players increases, including engines, to argue for this
     c. Note I say likely, not proven

2. Any given position is likely a draw if it exhibits certain characteristics like symmetry and contact between pieces.
     a. Note I say likely, not proven
     b. We can test whether these criteria are completely arbitrary by using EGTBs which are objective and do not guess like engines or humans do

3. A player making use of a database with every chess position stored along with either the evaluation of "draw" or "mate in __" would never make a mistake.
     a. I'll call this perfect and complete database 32EGTB
     b. I'll call its evaluation for any given position the "true evaluation"

4. If the true evaluation never changes from either mate or draw throughout the entire game, the game is perfect.
     a. There are other ways of defining a perfect game.
     b. This definition may lead to absurd examples using practical play.
     c. There is no easily agreed upon definition for what a perfect game is unless there is a forced mate from the starting position.
     

5. If both players play passively and symmetrically, and if the starting position's true evaluation is a draw, then the two players are likely to produce a perfect game
     a. Note I said likely and not definitely
     b. Note I'm assuming that the starting position is drawn.
     c. I'm also assuming my criteria for determining the likelihood of a position being drawn are useful.

After 3.Nf3 Nf6 the most common move in my database is 4.e5 which has been played by many different GMs.

It may not be the objectively best move, but KG players aren't too concerned with this. They typically want an objectively borderline lost position, with a big white initiative and chances for both sides.

so the setup for my stockfish is very bad

valutation for W goes down on 4.e5

“An ERROR will be a move that changes the outcome with BEST play on both sides.”

 That is what I said.

Let’s say with actual, literal perfect play the game starts off as drawn.  Now let’s say after a few moves in, black makes a move that gives white mate in 150 moves. I would consider that an imperfect move. 

 We don’t have the tools available to assess a perfect game. At least not by what I consider a reasonable definition of “perfect“

And really I can get more strict than that with the word.  Two candidate moves. Both of them lead to a drawn game. But one of the moves leaves more opportunities for the opponent to make an error.  One could argue that one is the actual perfect move, but so long as neither change the theoretical outcome with best play, I’m willing to call both perfect. 

Yep. Players do this on purpose in many openings, but especially in the king's gambit.

If you only follow engine and database stats, you'll end up with a 2nd rate (at the very least) repertoire.

I know this from experience, making these errors myself. You'll accidentally include lines GMs use (and computers approve of) that completely kill the position. Lower rated players will easily draw you.

As black (and as white in the king's gambit) you shouldn't try for 0.00. You should let the other side have an edge (that is, if you want to have winning chances).

thank you

will try the option 0.00. Good point

Let me argue against the highlighted part using your own words.

But before that, maybe you're making a distinction between perfect moves and a perfect game.

If a game contains all perfect moves, then I call that a perfect game

Ok, here we go:

That's opposite of what I said, but I don't really care, do what you want

That doesn’t at all conflict with what I said.  I think there’s a miscommunication somewhere? 

And how does the best engine beat you if you don’t make any errors? 

I am using the 2. ...Nf6 sequence as an attempt to refute that line of the King's Gambit. The current analysis of this line appears to be not very good. [i know the response is often 3. e5 by some strong players.]

I say that e5 is a blunder and you says that also gm play that move in order to confuse the opponent and if e5 is not good for the engine but played on real i conclude that is better to concentrate not on the best move in kg opening.  Where i'm wrong..i've studied KG for months  and 4.e5 is very bad

 Also, let’s say a human (or Stockfish) has forced mate in 153 moves, but doesn’t see it and instead plays a different move. 

Was that an error? 

So you're saying the player's moves may be perfect (if they never change Hal's evaluation).

And you agree that if every move in the game is like this, then it's a perfect game.

But you also say "[we] cannot say anyone of those players played perfect chess" (if Hal would have beaten either of them).

---

When you say if Hal would have beaten either of them, what I'm imagining is you're saying during the game we substitute Hal for one of the players, and now Wesely So, or Carlsen, is playing Hal instead of the human opponent he drew with.

Do you mean something else when you say if Hal would have beaten either of them?

Ok, no problem