Will computers ever solve chess?

  Despite being an amazing engine, Alphazero did NOT solve chess...

I would be shocked if chess was solved during my lifetime. I would be even more shocked if chess was solved during my lifetime and it turned out to be a win for either White or Black.

Nobody knows 100%. It is my guess [99.99% estimate] that chess is a draw--that is as close to "know" as i can get. [and i am satisfied with that]

So, Troy, would you like to give your guesses for the chance that chess is a win for White or that Chess is a win for Black or that chess is a draw?when neither side makes a mistake] 

   Like Elroch noted earlier, that percentage represents the strength of your belief, not the factual evidence gathered around the game of chess. Just to make it clear.

    And thanks for the invitation to participate, but I’m afraid I don’t play that kind of game. I have no problem with acknowledging the fact, which is:

   I don’t know. And then not moving from there. Remaining in the unknown state. It’s quite interesting to function from there.

“Like Elroch noted earlier, that percentage represents the strength of your belief, not the factual evidence gathered around the game of chess.”

Bingo!  That is EXACTLY the point.  Someone can be 99.99% “sure” gremlins exist, but that does NOT mean it is 99.99% likely that gremlins exist. 

Elroch  What openings have been refuted which were not already suspect?

I have helped revive a couple of openings myself but that just meant they became more popular. [had little to do if they were refuted or not?]

I can see endgame positions from the past which have been redone. now that we have chess engines to help...

Opening positions are very complex. They are not simple at all. But i have seen no opening position that has ever been anything but a draw--[by opening position i mean the board before any opening is played.]

There are a bunch of opening which i am sure lead to a draw. These include 1. c4   1. Nf3  1. e4  1. d4   1. g3

Your hypothetical concept of a very complex ending is really similar to the opening position. Both are extremely complex. Both have not been figured out 100%. Both are usually drawn with best players on both sides. 

However the opening position, even at 200 ply, is not going to turn into a win for White. Of course it is possible that White wins at 200 ply but i estimate there is only about 1 chance in 10,000 that this could happen. [i mean i could be insane!]

One can conjector most anything. i can conjector that aliens from another planet will rule the earth before i die but my guess this is about 1 chance in 10,000 that it will happen...                      

Actually the strength of my belief IS based on factual evidence gathered around the game of chess.

The question is not about the existence of huge amounts of evidence. The question is about the method of inference used on that evidence, which amounts to examining a tiny number of examples. This process is surely a useful basis for making practical decisions, but it is not a way to be close to certain about the absolute truth.

I am surprised you think inference about the opening position is much simpler than about a large number of other positions that can arise from it. Precise inference about positions tends to get more complex the more pieces are added.

Ponz111, I don’t care why you believe or what it’s based on. If you haven’t *demonstrated* perfect chess is statistically 99.99% likely a draw, your degree of belief is meaningless.

Not sure where you get that i said the opening position is much simpler than a large number of other positions  that can arise from it?

I said: "Opening positions are very complex. They are not simple at all." 

In fact, they have to be more complex than the positions which can arise from those opening positions.

I don't care if you agree with me or not. 

However, I have given a lot of evidence that chess is likely a draw.

You choose to ignore that evidence. That is you right to think that way.

  Statistically, yes. Quite two different percentages, not to be mixed up.

You claimed to be virtually certain about the result of the starting position but I would think it very likely you would agree there are positions about which you could not reach 99.99% certainty. Extremely difficult endings would easily qualify.

As I already pointed out, there is no disagreement about the EXISTENCE OF THE EVIDENCE. The disagreement is about the INFERENCE FROM THE EVIDENCE.

Perhaps you could describe your method of inference in more detail to convince us.

Ponz111: “There are a bunch of opening which i am sure lead to a draw. These include 1. c4   1. Nf3  1. e4  1. d4   1. g3”

”Sure” is a huge claim. You’ve also previously postulated you have proven it. Why don’t you publish your proof for peer review, and possibly win a Nobel prize?

  The existence of evidence, given the huge, huge number of games not being played, is nowhere around 99.99%...That’s where the mix-up with the strength of belief comes in.

One reason i infer that chess is a draw is that everything i have studied and looked at gives some evidence that chess is a draw.  I have seen no evidence at all that chess is a win for either side.

I have given page after page after page on another forum what evidence i have that chess is a draw.

Have found no evidence that chess is not a draw. In billions of games played nobody has found EVEN ONE GAME where one side won without the other side making an error.

 While it is possible that billions of games can be played without having even one game resulting in a win for one side [without an error] this is not likely.

But this is only one piece of my evidence. All my other evidence points the same way--that chess is likely a draw...

Suppose you have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

balls which you know are painted either red or blue.  Let us suppose that if the majority of the balls are painted red--this means chess is a draw with best play. Let us also suppose that if the majority of the balls are painted blue--this means chess is not a draw with best play.  

Now suppose all of these balls are in 1,000,000,000 bins and the balls are completely mixed up. [the balls are very small and each bin is very large]  Now suppose one person lives long enough to blindly [blindfolded] pick out a ball from each bin. [they can reach as deep in each bin as is possible]

The first ball picked out is red, the 2nd ball picked out from another bin is also red, the third ball picked out of another bin is also red. And  suppose someone picks out one ball from each of the billion bins and they all happen to be red.  It that not a good indication that the majority of the balls in the bin are red?  

Also, regarding the often stated fact that the very best chess players know little about chess compared to the very best chess engines--i will state that most of the difference between the very best human players and the very best chess engines is a matter of speed of calculation. The very best chess engines have a great advantage there. However if the very best humans were given a lot more time [to make up for the speed advantage of the chess engines] then the results between humans playing chess engines would be a lot more even.

Also, what is not often considered is that the very best human chess players combined with the very best chess engines do play better than the very best chess engines.

Another thing not often considered is that a 75 year old human who is past his best abilities could solve chess problems which the best chess engines could not solve. [giving more evidence that strong humans with the help of the best chess engines can play better than the best chess engines alone--which also may mean that we are getting closer to  optimum rating strengh.]

When ALL evidence points one way, a human can reasonably infer that the one way the evidence points to--is correct.