Will computers ever solve chess?

Speculate... open question... has not been proven... in our gut...

All contradict with KNOW....

Would you like to pick a position?

Yes, -- consider that you are mistaken, and suffer from tunnel vision, which makes effectively communication well nigh impossible.  Try this book on for size -- Wayne Booth, (2004)...

https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-RHETORIC-Quest-Effective-Communication/dp/1405112379

You'll be a better man for it, and capable of listening too.

Best play, and perfect play are Ponz111's ideas.  These ideas are well described (by Elroch above), but I never signed up to that frosting on the cake.  My proposition was a much weaker one -- even with the advantage of a minor piece, a forced mate cannot be delivered in billions of positions.  Hence the presumption of a draw, until shown otherwise.

That proposition is both simple and pragmatic -- without the need to breath the same Olympian air as the Gods of Logic to which you keep aspiring, and baldly asserting.

ponz111, that perfect chess is a draw may (or may NOT) be a fact. But the thing is, nobody knows. YOU don’t know. speak for yourself, i know 99.99% chance

Nobody takes issue with you guessing it’s a draw. We take issue with you claiming to KNOW it’s a draw. i don't care if you take issue with it.

And don’t even try that “we don’t really know anything 100% we could be trapped in the Matrix and none of this is true” copout nonsense. Under your dishonest word game we can’t “know” 1 + 1 = 2.  this is correct. We really do not know anything 100% so if I say I know something 99.99% this is essentially "know". Everything we think of as a "fact" is really just an opinion. We think something is a fact means it is our opinion it is  true.

To me chess is a draw is my opinion which also means it is a "fact" to me.     If you think chess is not a draw  then to you chess is not a draw -- is a "fact". If you do not know if chess is a draw then it is not a fact to you.

You’re claiming to KNOW the outcome of perfect chess and your claim is unjustified. But it is justified because i have a whole lot of evidence that the outcome of perfect chess is a draw. Our justification of our beliefs comes from our evidence . If i say i am 76 years old--my justification for saying this comes from a whole bunch of evidence  that i am 76 years old. If i state it is a fact that i am 76 years old, i am giving my opinion i am 76 years old. And my opinion comes from a whole bunch of evidence.

Yes, -- consider that you are mistaken, and suffer from tunnel vision, which makes effectively communication well nigh impossible.  Try this book on for size -- Wayne Booth, (2004)...

https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-RHETORIC-Quest-Effective-Communication/dp/1405112379

You'll be a better man for it, and capable of listening too.

Best play, and perfect play are Ponz111's ideas.  These ideas are well described (by Elroch above), but I never signed up to that frosting on the cake.  My proposition was a much weaker one -- even with the advantage of a minor piece, a forced mate cannot be delivered in billions of positions.  Hence the presumption of a draw, until shown otherwise.

That proposition is both simple and pragmatic -- without the need to breath the same Olympian air as the Gods of Logic to which you keep aspiring, and baldly asserting.

Once again, this is through the lense of fallible players who have no idea the ultra-deep ramifications of opening moves. This is nonsense, of course fallible players have an idea of the ultra-deep ramifications of opening moves. If they didn't then their openings moves would be made at random and their opening moves are not make at random!

They might make few *numeric* changes to current computer analyses, which don’t apply to solved chess.  not sure what you mean by "numeric" changes.  However one does not have to "solve" chess to play perfect moves. In fact, Two 8 year olds can just happen to play perfect moves for the whole game and thus play a perfect game. As we go up in chess experience and chess knowledge there is more of a chance to play a perfect game.

We have ZERO knowledge which moves may or may not change 0.00 to Mate in X, or visa versa. This is simply not true and i will give a chess diagram to prove my point. In the position i am going to give we know which moves will change the position to either a draw or a mate.

I think you're getting the hang of it - the number of mathematical operations required to solve chess is unknown, and therefore the amount of time required to solve chess is unknown. 200 years is also within the span of time which is unknown.

I have to ask again. Is English your second language? I’m not asking to be flippant about it, if so it would explain a lot.

IN CONTEXT, by “ultra-deep” I was obviously meaning from start to finish. For example, you DO NOT KNOW after (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6) If white has Forced Mate after over 100 (or hundreds) of moves. The question was not put that way at all. I can only answer the question you ask--not some question with a different meaning.

Numeric value to assess the position (+0.35 or -1.62, etc). With solved chess those can go away. The position is either literally drawn or Mate in X, from ANY position. Numeric values are just estimates of the final result and these are used in practical play but would be of no use if chess were ever solved.

It’s irrelevant if people CAN (incidentally) play a perfect game. My contention is with your dubious claim you can KNOW if a game is perfect.  yes, and i responded to that.

Thank you for the diagram. IN CONTEXT I’m clearly talking about normal, opening moves. That was not clear at all--i took you for what  you actually posted.

How about after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5? Do you have a diagram that proves which moves change between 0.00 and Mate in X?  Are you assuming that moves change the final theoretical result after those moves? You need to reword your sentence to make the sentence more clear as to your meaning. Your sentence is ambiguous, please reword.

troy  Suppose we have a container with 100 marbles in the container.All 100 marbles are identical with each other except for color.

Now suppose in that container there are 90 black marbles and 6 white marbles and 4 green marbles. These marbles are all mixed up.

Now suppose you knew there were exactly 100 marbles in the container and suppose you knew that some of the marbles were black and some of the marbles are white and some of the marbles are green.

and you are to be blindfolded and pull one marble out of the container...

The chances are NOT 33% that the one marble would be white. Just because there are 3 choices and this is all you know--does not mean that  you have a 33% chance of pulling out a white marble. Actually in the senario you would only have a 6% chance that the first marble you chose would be white.

After:

1. e4 (does black have a ridiculously long forced mate? You don’t know. Even if you say you do.)

1...e5 (does white?)

2. Nf3 (does black?)

ect. 

  I’ve asked him the exact same questions, in the same example, with the addition of 3. Bb5. No answer.

You also don’t KNOW if the STARTING position is a draw. 

 Reinforced this repeatedly.

I have no problem if you say, “I think it’s probably a draw and here’s why.” It’s your claims to KNOW and that you’ve PROVED it that I have a problem with.

He keeps pretending to not understand the distinction. Occasionally, he comes up with a contradiction which proves he understood, then he backtracks.

  Duh, of course. It was understood several posts ago. Well, you could have told me you understood this a few posts ago and then i would not have had to explain it to you again?

But that has nothing to with perfect chess. In your example, you know for a fact the color of the marbles.  I never said it had anything to do with perfect chess--it was just a response to a statement you made.

  But a draw in imperfect chess is based on blunders that are not possible to see with our imperfect instruments. This is absolutely wrong. A draw in perfect chess or inperfect chess does not have to be based on blunders.

Moreover, the belief that chess is a draw makes players play as if it’s true, thus strengthening the belief. What a lot of hogwash! I believe chess is a draw and i always play for a win. In fact i set a record in a USA Championship of winning all my games with Black [7 out of 7].[this record will never be broken] You really lack chess knowledge to make such a statement.

In general,  chess players try hard to win.

But it’s still a belief. Still blunders, still imperfect chess, Here your sentence is cut short and is ambiguous. What is a belief?  What blunders? 

  Any result in an imperfect game is irrelevant from the vantage point of a perfect game.  This is not true as sometimes it is relevant. Sometimes we can go over a imperfect game, knowing one side or the other made a mistake, and then find the mistake.  Thus if we eliminate the mistake [or mistakes] we can see the theoretical result will be a draw.

It is relevant for playing the game, for that’s all we have, a bunch of beliefs, but it may turn out we’re all fools and played blunders from early stages of an opening. We currently don’t know.  You keep saying that in regards to chess we don't know things. But from your postings, your understanding of chess is minimal. My guess is if you played at the grandmaster level, you would state chess is a draw with best play by both sides.

 In your example, the marbles don’t change the color. In the example we’re talking about, the outcome of the games changes with perfect play.NO!! The outcome of a chess game DOES NOT CHANGE with perfect play--it remains a draw! 

  That was the reason I gave it a one-in-three shot: because it is random, because a draw in a game full of blunders means nothing to a game without any blunders whatsoever. Well your original math was incorrect.  By the way a draw [or a win or a loss] in a game full of blunders means little to a game without any blunders IF there are many blunders. The less blunders--the more it means. For example if you play a game with only one blunder--it says something about a perfect game as if you take away that blunder, often  the result is a perfect game. You you gain some knowledge even while playing a game with 1 or 2 or 3 blunders.

  There may be only one sequence of best moves on both sides, starting from White’s first move, and any other combination may result in a myriad of draws and imperfect wins and losses. Those other games are meaningless. Your wording of this sentence is not  very good. Do you mean that the may be one sequence of best moves for both sides, starting with White's first move, which will always lead to a win?? [I am telling you--there is no such forced sequence which leads to a win from the starting position.] 

  It is like two beginners playing each other: absolutely anything can happen, draw, White wins or Black wins. This would be true for most beginners unless they happened to stumble on to a perfect game by luck alone. However this is not so true as the skill level goes up. As the skill level of both players goes  up--more and more chance that they will play a perfect game.

Absolutely irrelevant for superior play. And superior play becomes irrelevant for perfect play. Please use whole sentences. What is absolutely irrelevant for  superior play?? And are you saying that superior play cannot lead to a game of perfect play??