Will computers ever solve chess?

Ponz's view is perhaps best considered from the point of view of the scientific method. In lieu of a mathematical proof about perfect chess, all we have is empirical data that is inadequate to deduce an answer, but might have some value via INDUCTION, the method of reasoning used in the scientific method. As such, Ponz might say that his view that chess is a draw is a hypothesis that is (in some loosely defined statistical way) consistent with the data (consisting of games played between humans and between computers none of which is perfect but which have significant ability to pick good moves more often than by random selection, plus tablebases of precise information about very restricted positions).

It would be nice to express this as a Bayesian belief, but it seems difficult to make this substantial, as the quality of the evidence (apart from tablebases) is unclear (and tablebases don't make it much clearer).

One advantage of the question is that there are only three possible conjectures. This makes the chance of being right higher than in a scientific context where "right" may not even necessarily exist.

Both 3. Bb5 and 3. d4 are perfect moves because they do not change the theoretical outcome of a chess game.

 I did not try to use 3. d4 "to show it is somewhat wrong" You are using "strawman" here which is a logical fallacy. Strawman is the attempt to refute an opponent's argument by distorting what your opponent says.

The fact that both Kasparov and i both did well with that move does not prove it is a move which leads to a win by force.

troy  Your last long statement was way too long for me to respond to without copying the previous statements which were also way too long  to be practical.  If you would wish to detach that last very long statement from the other very long statement i will be glad to answer it.

However i will note now that in  your recent statement you again used the logical fallacy of "strawman"

 How did you go about determining neither move puts White in a net, giving black forced mate in 136 moves? 

I know from my knowledge of chess and how the game of chess works that neither move puts White in a net, giving black a forced mate in 136 moves.

There is much evidence that neither move puts White in a net, giving black a forced mate in 136 moves.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I know from my knowledge of the incident that the defendant is guilty.“

Boom. Mic drop.  With evidence like that how can they not come back with a guilty verdict? 

:-)

mate in 136 move is a fact.

Tsoukalos too think so

hi Borat..this is your place..really :-)

I thought it was 137 moves, but I may have missed a quicker finish.

Two questions for ponz, excellent player that he is.

1. Do you claim to know the correct result in every position that you reach in every game, with absolute certainty?
2. How do you think you can be certain about the bigger issue of the correct result in the starting position if there exists any line you would take that does not have a certain evaluation?

USArmy  It is true that after the senario i gave--that the jury might come back with with a not guilty verdict.

Their verdict does not necessarily have much to do with the truth. In my state of Illinois there were 12 people on death row who were later exonerated.

Even in the [very unlikely] event that chess is solved during my lifetime and that chess is solved to be a draw [as checkers was solved to be a draw] then i would be 99.995% sure that chess is a draw--rather than being 99.99% sure.  

 That is beside the point. “Based on my experience” is essentially saying “Because I said so.”  It is meaningless. It is not evidence. It would not be acceptable for a jury.  It would not be acceptable for a scientific hypothesis.  It would not be acceptable as a mathematical proof (which is arguably what solving chess is).

 This whole “99.99% sure because I’m not 100% sure of anything“ is a copout and it’s meant to muddy the waters. We are talking about a real world conversation.  In philosophy there is a premise that there’s no such thing as absolute certainty; for example, how do we know we are not trapped in the matrix and none of this is real?  That adds no value to the conversation.   

You claim to be *AS* certain now as you would be if chess were solved and concluded the same thing.  In the *colloquial* (not philosophical) sense, you are in fact claiming certainty. And that certainty is woefully unjustified. 

- That chess played at a high level is often a draw doesn’t even come close to meeting the burden of proof. 

- Whether or not some or most GM’s guess it’s a draw is irrrelevant and isn’t evidence of anything. 

- “Based on my experience” “Based on my knowledge” or whatever variant of “Because I said so” isn’t evidence of anything. 

 You’re claiming to factually know the outcome from the starting position. You’re claiming to factually know the outcome after three moves have been played. AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF.  All of your so-called evidence have been laughable. You even had the audacity to claim people were being mean to you, and that that is evidence chess is a draw! 

 OK so you magically know the theoretical outcome of perfect chest after three moves. How about after four moves? (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7)  Is black trapped in an obscenely long mating net, yes or no?  And how do you know? 

:-)

magically ..i can't believe it..so mate in 136 moves is not a magical option is a logical statement...

again tsoukalos docet

you came with a ciclopic absurdity like mate in 136 and ask people to prove is not wrong :-)

it's a show

Serious question.  And I know from your standpoint the answer should be selfevident, and it is, but there’s a reason I’m asking. 

What makes the question absurd? 

136

No, that was your straw man.  I never said that Venn diagrams are designed to convey magnitude.  But what something is designed for and how the common man interprets it are two different things. 

You know that already, the same way that you know that your backing off your previous position by never mentioning it is duplicitous.  You say on page 60ish that it could take 18 years, and lay out how (badly), then on page 109 you say it could be 200 years, then you clam up on you actual opinion for 150 pages other than to say that chess can be solved at some point, and it's not entirely impossible...which nobody still around at this point has disputed. 

You lost this argument long ago, and all you are doing now is saving face by pretending none of it ever happened and that your position is rock solid, when anyone paying attention can see that your cliff house slid into the ocean years back...

As for the "titled players know chess is a draw" argument...well, the top super GMs were all shocked by a bishop sacrifice made by a brand new engine to lock up an endgame.  Clearly, human beings have plenty to learn about chess, and now that engines are going to use their own play rather than human evaluation methods for determining best play, humans will be shocked many, many more times in the coming years.  Eventually it will go beyond shock and we will cease to understand "best play" at all.  This outcome is completely inevitable.

(and still at that point, chess will not be solved ...)

Still waiting.