Will computers ever solve chess?

Well, here we have two dictionaires with two different definitions of "conjecture"

The dictionary i looked at states: "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information"

[by the way "proof" has more than one definition. For example there is math type "proof" and then there is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."

I have long said i do not have the math kind of proof [as in solving chess]  but i do have proof via a whole lot of evidence...

This whole tapdance of yours is blatantly dishonest. With all your hedging words like “prove” “know” “certain” and “conjecture” have no meaning. I can literally plug into any assertion and wiggle my way out anytime I want.

This is why this topic goes around in circles. People are much too inexact with their language.

You think it's speculation that at least 1 of all legal moves is perfect?

You... want to rethink that?

And of course it's obvious, I was only making this point because of you previous use of inexact language.

Incorrect. It's logical for the reasons I give (edit, and I see elroch gives some more)

Maybe people who don't play chess shouldn't comment in this topic... if chess is so vast and mysterious to you, you're bound to start talking about it like a fairy tale monster.

That a valid point, but in this case it goes a lot further than inexact language. 

ponz111 “qualifies” his statement by saying he’s only 99.99% sure. But then he says he can only 99.99% sure about anything, including if the earth revolves around the sun. So (in the colloquial sense) he’s still claiming certainty. Then he admits his claim [perfect chess is a draw] is CONJECTURE based on incomplete information. Then he says “I don't think that anyone has complete information about anything as I could be a figment of imagination in some being's mind.“

He’s playing a dishonest word games where he can make these two statements and claim they don’t contradict:

ponz111: i am still certain chess is a draw [under conditions stated] as that i am sure that earth resolves round the sun.”

And 

ponz111: “Yes, that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error which would change the course of the game is my opinion, it is a conjecture, which is an opinion based on incomplete information.”

DON’T CONTRADICT! 

I don’t care how much you like or respect someone. Intellectual dishonesty should be called out.

There's a few people on this thread that argue this way .  Arguing that there is a infinitesimal chance that chess can be solved by randomly running into a forced mate early on does not mean that it still isn't impossible using current technology, much the same way that if someone tells you they can flip heads on a coin a trillion times in a row, technically there is a chance...but saying it is possible or even likely within our lifespans is BS.  It's the argument of someone who has nothing else left. 

Lots of logic-bereft and/or computer-ignorant posters here use these "but it can technically happen" like faith in a god:  "but, you can't disprove God".  Burden of proof is on the side presenting an outcome differing from current reality that has zero evidence.

Those two statements by me [as shown above] DO NOT CONTRADICT!

Right, ponz111. That which you regard as “conjecture,” your “opinion based on incomplete information” - is *also* as certain as the earth revolving around the sun. 

Cool story, bro 👍

He's certain (as you said in the colloquial sense) that something is true.

He's also aware that he doesn't have complete information.

I don't see how those contradict. The first statement is made in a casual / practical sense (I assume the sun will rise because it's impractical not to) and the second statement is made in a more rigorous mathematical sense.

How do you know the earth revolves around the sun?

I don't think it's such a bad comparison.

Ah, in defense of him you’re going to go down the same dishonest word game. The word CONJECTURE is always used in the context of having insufficient evidence to justify a belief, or at the very least to justify a claim to knowledge. 

By yours and his rabbit hole of “How do we really know anything and if you don’t have literally every piece of information in all existencance is it really complete?” - the word CONJECTURE then loses all usefulness, because you can literally claim 1 + 1 = 2 is conjecture. 

Just by you asking “How do you know the earth revolves around the sun?” - what is it? Is he a celebrity you’re infatuated with? Are you drinking buddies? Is he blackmailing you with naked pictures? Are you just screwing with me?

2 + 2 = 5 boi. Don't ask me why it is wrong

Ok, then I will agree with you that maybe he uses the word conjecture incorrectly (I didn't use the word).

I haven't been keeping up with all the posts.

As for naked pictures... lol

It’s more than that, because he even clarified it’s an OPINION based on INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.

He knew what he was saying when he said it. He contradicted himself. And he can’t just say “Well you know I hadn’t thought of it like that maybe I’m wrong.” I think he’s NoahDr’s dad.

I have a conjecture, based on incomplete but overwhelming information, that is none-the-less more certain than anything, and irrefutable, that NoahDr knows exactly what he's doing.

But that's just my guess.

Hahaha 

I’ve thought about that. And you could be right, but my guess is he really is that... I’ll just say unaware. 

  Apart from the endings, an engine cannot find a perfect move, except by pure accident, which doesn’t mean much. We are talking about the ability to precisely find them, not by dumb accidents, which even beginners can stumble upon ocassionally. Accidents are irrelevant. 

 I don’t play chess? Another speculation.

Are you use it's pure accident?

Or are there reliable algorithms?

Do you think an engine could draw simple endgames vs a tablebase?

Do you think it could win won endgames vs a tablebase?

godsofhell can get annoyingly technical. He will point out a computer will find a short-medium mating net if found during the opening, which is definitionally perfect.

But to what you are actually trying to say, yes you are correct.

GOH, can you explain exactly what table bases are? Never heard of them until this discussion.