Will computers ever solve chess?

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 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: 

...You are effectively saying that chess is as likely to be solved in the next 20 years as in any 20 year period following...whether 100 or 100,000 years from now...

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

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]

  Very few people are free from beliefs, and ‘strong chess players’ are no exception. They believe in general, in life, they hold beliefs in many directions, usually based on ‘ if the majority see it, it must be true.WOW! you are very wrong in this statement! One reason strong players are so strong is that they do NOT blindly follow authority.

‘ So they jump on the bandwagon of belief , while blind as bats. The truth is just the opposite of what you are saying.

It is irrelevant that then they try to convince themselves and others that there are rational reasons for that belief to be something true. If you mean "strong play" for "belief" their  results vindicate their beliefs as to how to play chess.

And they usually succeed, at in least in fooling themselves into believing it’s more than a belief: a belief trying to replace another belief! You apparently do not know very many chess masters or chess grandmasters or maybe you would not make these statements which are contrary to reality?

  Yet believing in a non-fact doesn’t make it into a fact.’ of course--who ever said something different?

  Nobody cares who holds what beliefs. The pristine fact remains that nobody knows what the result of a perfect game is. This is  not true. I know what the result of a perfect game is. [just because you do not know something does not mean it cannot be known]

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]

1. IF that were true there is a distinct difference between someone believing something is likely true, and someone claiming to KNOW it’s the truth. I know this--that is why i used the word "believe" in the first sentence.

2. You haven’t demonstrated that’s true.  You have only claimed it over and over.  Show me your survey data. I do not think there has been a survey of this subject. I can say that of all my master and grandmaster friends i have asked the question about 90% believe a perfect game is a draw and 10% are not sure.

3. Gary Kasparov acknowledged the outcome of a perfect game has not been proven.  And he’s a pretty strong chess player, wouldn’t you say? He is a great player but you have to take his one sentence into contex of the whole article. But this is what he mentioned some years ago--if you asked him now he might say that with the addional information -he believes chess is a draw with perfect play.

4. None of this even matters, because you are using the Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Despite the fact that you lack the comprehension ability to understand what’s actually written in RationalWiki. The Argumentum ad populum is not always wrong.

Reading Introduction to Logic  Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Argumentum Ad Populum it has a section V Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum: and it gives several examples.

B If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not be automatically be discounted.

 The 1500 + grandmasters in the world are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not be automatically discounted.

 Also, you extracted a single word from a Wiki, which was poorly worded and can be edited by anyone with an account. Here’s the definition from Lander University. Every word counts and the word I mentiuoned was very important

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

 And in fairness to whoever wrote that wiki article, it really wasn’t that poorly worded. The author just didn’t account for people (such as yourself) getting “creative“ with their interpretations to serve an agenda. Lots of laughs you do not agree with the article so you are trying to say it is poorly worded  However it also agrees with the source i gave above. 

  You misunderstand. GMs, just like scientists, even the best of them, in daily life, which means outside the game of chess ( or science, respectively), hold a lot of beliefs. You are simply blind to how your brain works, in daily life, and not knowing yourself, you don’t know anybody else.  i hold a lot of beliefs, I believe earth is teeming with life. I believe My son is in school right now.

 If you could look in a metaphorical mirror, you would see how your brain is moving from one belief to another, it only moves from one belief to another if some facts come out to show me i am wrong. This happens but not very often at all.

not in chess,  In chess sometimes i change my mind--based on facts or new information--but sometimes.

but in your daily activities. From one insecurity to another. And if you were able to observe yourself in such a manner you could also see that the human mind in general functions like this, what? being insecure?

from one belief to another, from one speculation to another. there can be a difference between "belief" and "speculation" "beliefs" [to me] require a lot of facts or a lot of evidence.

GM’s, like any idiot out there, are not above this pattern. In their petty lives, they are full of beliefs. We are all full of beliefs. This does not mean the beliefs are untrue. GM's tend to believe based on facts and evidence--much more so than the average person.

 The reason I brought it up before was to show you that the same pattern of beliefs from their everyday lives is transferred to the game of chess: you just contradited what you wrote above ["not in chess"]

after all it is the same brain, they don’t have a spare one. actually they  have their own brain and everybody's brains are different--expecially in how they acquire beliefs. 

Which is why they might believe that a perfect game is a draw. NO WAY!   grandmasters do not think that way! The game of chess requires a whole lot of logic. To play well requires logic. To play super well requires even better logic.

It’s what the brain does, moving from one non-fact to another, from one assumption to another, not my brain  -- my beliefs are based on facts and evidence. 

which is why suffering of man continues. The human mind avoids the facts per se, in this psychological field of life. [ this is dt accidently changed the color of your sentence--but i do not believe all minds are like that--some of us are skeptics [i am]  and very much avoid following authority.

  What is the main assumption at the core of it all? If I asked you ‘ who are you?’, what would you answer? I would give facts about myself to answer that question.

THAT is the root of all assumptions, which acts like a virus that destroys a computer. What is the root of all assumptions?  With me my assumptions come from facts and evidence.

  Now, aside from childishly repeating that a perfect game is a draw, you haven’t produced a single shred of logical evidence in arriving at that crooked conclusion. Not a single one. Actually i have produced a ton of evidence and other posters have also produced evidence. You have a confirmation bias and you reject all the evidence that does not fit into  your preconceived ideas.

 So if you want to present something else, let’s have it, after presenting a ton of evidence--i really do not need to present more. and other posters have also presented evidence--which you ignore because of your extreme confirmation bias.

You also have used logical fallacies such as Ad hominem and strawman because of your extreme confirmation bias. You also have shown you lack a understanding how the minds of very good chess players work.

and, like your previous immature  attempts, very good! doing another logical fallacy here!

it will be instantly refuted not just by me, but by any logical person here, and fortunately we have quite a few.  and are they going to instantly refute all the other posters also?--i have noticed the other posters who i agree with were all quite good players.

 Let’s have it!

A Venn diagram shows the relations of elements into groups. They don't represent scopes, sizes, or magnitudes. This is the type of error that usually gets filtered out immediately at the StackExchange.

----->The reason I brought it up before was to show you that the same pattern of beliefs from their everyday lives is transferred to the game of chess: after all it is the same brain, they don’t have a spare one. Which is why they might believe that a perfect game is a draw. It’s what the brain does, moving from one non-fact to another, from one assumption to another, which is why suffering of man continues.

This statement is a belief