Will computers ever solve chess?

I said that: he starts from the assumption presented as a fact, that a perfect game is a draw. That is the root of his claims. 

  Of course, he doesn’t know that White doesn’t win by force, nor that Black doesn’t do the same. He settles for a draw and proceeds with examples of it. 

But nobody knows that a perfect game is a draw. Therefore the root of his claims is utterly false.

Alpha zero will eventually solve chess, yes 

I didn't mention StackExchange to discuss its merits as a business model. It's for people who are interested in "Will computers ever solve chess" presented in a peer-reviewed format with non-reliable information filtered out.

But it doesn't matter what resource you use: chesss.com, StackExchange, scholarly articles, and academic papers - they are all in agreement. None have concluded that chess can never be solved. In fact, none have produced a lower limit for the number of mathematical operations required to solve chess, or the amount of computer processing time required.

Yes, alpha zero also mastered chess in 4 hours, which is unusual for humans to do that quick. I bet the average of how many months they could master chess with tactics is about 6 months ( just guessing ). Just watch this as alpha zero beats stockfish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g9SlVdv1PY

And I bet stockfish is learning a lesson from alpha zero. Don't know why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebzevCLGbQ

Welcome to game 9 guys, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTWkX6KZO2A

 That’s what I’ve been saying: the knowledge accumulated by humans about the game is next to nothing. And that’s because the amount we don’t know is so vast, which makes what we do know so little.

I disagree. >99% of what you're calling knowledge is superfluous. For example in the thousands of positions that comprise K+R vs K some EGTB may be able to say how different moves mate in different numbers, but knowing only the basic idea a human can can still win (and even win in the shortest number of moves given time to analyze).

To a lesser extent this is true all game long. With the just basics and slow calculation humans find correct moves.

I give a logical basis for arguing chess is a draw, and everyone wants to talk about how ponz didn't while ignoring me 

This is a poor way to try and downgrade what we do know.

Our universe is so vast that what we know about our solar system and our planet earth and our moon and the planets and moons in our solar system is very small compared to vastness of space. However despite all of that we know a whole lot about our earth and our solar system.

By your reasoning you could say that all the knowledge we have "is nothing" compared to all the potential knowledge there could be regarding our universe or in our univerde.  So maybe we should close our schools and universities and do away with our books [this is an anology] and  shut down our minds?  because what we do know is "next to nothing" compared to the potential knowledge. So let's DISMISS the knowledge we do have [like you wish to dismiss the knowledge we do have regarding chess] No need to know how to drive a car or prepare a meal or do the things we use our knowledge for as we are going to DISMISS that knowledge?! 

Since I have never claimed that chess will never be solved, nor has anyone still posting regularly on this thread that I can think of, you clearly are still arguing with your own straw man, rather than face the actual position that we are in conflict about:  that you have stated that chess may be solved in under 20 years, and if not 20, certainly within our lifetimes.  This position is beyond dubious, and it's time you admitted it.

Actually i agreed with you and also used the postings of other people who agreed with both of us as part of the evidence i am using to make my points.

In several different ways--part of what you posted was also my idea but worded a little better. [and part of what you posted was unique to you]

i agree with this and have posted diagrams of chess positions to make this point.

The 5. Qe2 line is interesting as it does help to hold back Black in the center.

I am guessing there are several lines where White plays 0-0-0 and then maybe breaks with g3?

  Knowledge covers more than principles: I mean the ‘huge’ amount of opening knowledge we have accumulated, and which a present-day computer can learn to bypass  in just 4 hours...That seems astonishing, but given the fact that it covers just a very tiny portion of the final picture to be covered, it is not so surprising after all. It may turn out that most of this opening knowledge is rather meaningless.

The number of mathematical operations required to solve chess is unknown, and therefore the amount of time required to solve chess is unknown. Twenty years is within the span of time which is unknown. You can use this Venn diagram to understand it:

  In a certain field, we have to do just that.

 Knowledge is limited, wouldn’t you agree? No matter how much you acquire, there is always room for more. There are always more experiences left to experience, and each experience leaves a trace of knowledge, which is then stored in memory.

 Now, the memory is very limited, not only in humans but also in computers, as it turns out. So, as someone suggested earlier, even if a computer had the computational power to solve chess, there would be no room to store its ongoing results. Of course, in actuality, without the corresponding memory, the computational power is limited. So a solution to store an immense amount of knowledge must be discovered first.

  In humans it can only contain so much, so even if it expands it is still limited—same for computers, but let’s leave them aside for a second. Now, in the field of life, of relationships, anything goes. It is virtually unlimited, unlike in chess. So in life, we are approaching this unlimited, infinite field with knowledge, which is finite, limited. We are approaching the unlimited with the limited, the infinite with the finite.

 The result is failure, followed by more failure. Despite the astonishing technological progress, especially in the last 50 years, we are as primitive as the first tribes on Earth. The same urges for violence, greed, only now they’re dressed up in various clothes of ideals of civilization, morality, but underneath the urges are the same.

 Therefore, when trying to approach the infinite field of relationships with the limited field of knowledge, relationships fail, communication fails, division prevails and conflict is inevitable. Which is the failure of relationships.

 So getting to the bottom of this, understanding that approaching the unlimited with the limited is bound to fail, what can be done? The solution suggests itself: approach the unlimited with the unlimited. Not with knowledge, which is finite. The question is how?

 Of course, in limited fields the limited field of knowledge/memory is the best approach. One must continue to accumulate knowledge about math, building highways, bridges, fuel-efficient cars, medicine, all that. But let’s not get carried away: the unlimited field of life, being way, way bigger than the limited fields—a few mentioned above—it always trumps the limited.

 The psychological reasons always trump the technological ones.

 Which is why we have guns, bombs, military aircraft, nuclear arsenal: the psychological reasons of greed, selfishness, violence, power and insecurity will always be behind the technological discoveries, which are not created in a vacuum, but by biased minds, after all.

 So back to the question: how do we reach the infinite, so that we approach the unlimited with the unlimited itself?!

nice diagram

Actually Alpha Zero came up with much of the same opening knowledge which has  been held for many years--it is just that Alpha Zero did it faster [far faster]  

The stronger the chess player--the more likely that player will believe that chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake.

The stronger the chess player--the more likely he/she will think that the current chess knowledge is useful. [and that chess player uses his/her chess knowledge to do well in his games]

Computer solved chess cos they dont hang pieces and eventually the game will end as draw! End of story!!

Thanks, diagrams have always been important in math. The one above is simple, but they aren't always so. Fractals are cool too.