Will computers ever solve chess?

 Ok, the bottom line is that it's way too huge.

The bottom line is that our knowledge today is pretty much doomed by irrecoverable ignorance. The future generations will probably have a good laugh.

    The point was that the whole must be somehow seen first, in order that a framework be built. Otherwise, a framework to what? The whole thing hasn't been seen yet. The end must be seen first. I don't know how induction could be applied here, without an end in sight--I mean, not even getting close to it.

  If there will be future generations at all...

Don't flatter yourself, we were probably not destined to be the last.

such as the unknown bro.

When I woke up I realized I did it wrong again lol.

48!/32! and now you don't divide by 16! because there are two colors of pawns. So you divide by 8! twice.

Also this only counts for 16 pawns.

So is there a formula for chess? 

Absolutely: C2H5OH is the perfect formula to go with chess.

Good news.  Chess is a solved game and has been even before computers were invented.  Here is why.  There is no infanite number of moves in a chess game.  The number of moves, patterns and positions are limited by the board and the moves of the chessmen.  It has been estimated that there is approxiamatly 10 to the 120th power of possible moves during any game.  Therefore when you complete a game, either win lose or draw, no matter how few or many moves played, you have just solved one of the 10 to the 120th of total possible outcomes. 

Chess is not a problem to be solved. It is a world to be explored. What makes it interesting is its complexity. Of course there are other complex systems to be explored, not least amongst them the nature of awareness and intelligence themselves and the mysteries of the heavens (Is that what you mean when you write "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"?

Definve solve.

I have no idea either way but if you're talking about branching I think a monkey could solve that given enough time. In that case time is the only factor. And once solved, by a monkey, human or computer, anyone or anything could use the cheat sheet of all possible openings, moves, reactions and so forth to play a perfect game.


Whether or not a set of algorithms mixed in with game theory, sensory analysis and what not could produce a Robot that always wins...now that's an interesting question, one much too rarely asked. 

One that does the same and always at least draw?  From what I know today computers are utter shit without branching-cheat-sheets programed into them. They take much longer than a human brain to analyze completely foreign patterns to them and if you put a computer like this, without its cheat-sheet playing against a copy of it self I'm pretty sure we'd see a lot of different results. 

  It is still astronomical. Also, some positions from the French Winawer/Nimzowitsch seem crazy and illogical. Who's to say what is illogical? Computers contradict that concept quite often.

  It was something of concern, not a reason for joy. We might wipe ourselves out. 

  Chess is not false, because the king can be mated. However, one can say it's false if, with perfect moves, one gets mated in a few moves. Then it's useless to play it, since it's not a challenge.

  But we know that much already: it is not possible to get mated in less than, say, 20 moves, unless blunders occured. We know this because we always find those blunders, for such short games.

  So the point is to find these 'perfect moves' and solve the game. But it's more like 'perfect' in the sense of finding a mate in 10.000 moves, as opposed to 10.001...

  I understand your trying to make a point about using an alternate method to solve the game, other than exhausting the possible moves.

  But you weren't sure is it could be applied here, which is what I also said. So unless someone can show how would that work here, the only one remaining is through calculation.

The question is to calculate only non stupid moves, and to watch for situations in which some moves should be tried first.
I'm sure strong players notice geometrical patterns suggesting forks, skewers, etc. And then try to include these features in a concrete variation.

It seems that softwares (not computers !!) do exactly the opposite, and find these tricks by accident, after having tried a lot a completely irrelevant moves.

A faster computer can be two or four times more performant. But a smart method can divide the time of an algorithm by dozens of times.

You won't know whether a move is stupid until after you exhaustively calculate it.

This isn't useful for playing extremely well, but it's necessary for a solution.

Provided you can store the previous games (to make sure it doesn't repeat old games) then sure, that would eventually solve chess.

You're not thinking big enough, with an android you can do any design.

Put a big shark tail on it, so while it's playing two games with two hands, it's playing a 3rd by slappin' the pieces across the board.

This would really make waves in the chess world.

It would be a splash.

We're going to need a bigger boat.

And so on.