Will computers ever solve chess?

I agree with this. But methinks there are zillions of ways to force a draw and such endgame positions can be avoided. [or don't happen] 

I never ever said i had 100% proof. That is what is needed to claim a large prize.  I  am only 99.99% sure.

However, your unwillingness to look at evidence makes me discount some of your opinions.

Here's a wiki where each chess position gets it's own individual page, which contains computer analysis of said position and/or commentary.

Each of the possible 20 first moves (1.a3, 1.a4, 1.b3, …, 1.Na3, 1.Nc3), and a growing portion of known opening theory, have an individual wiki page with computer analysis and/or commentary.

I went through and hyperlinked the PGN of Morphy versus the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard, each move linking to it's own page.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4.dxe5 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.Nc3 c6 9.Bg5 b5 10.Nxb5 cxb5 11.Bxb5 Nbd7 12.0-0-0 Rd8 13.Rxd7 Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6 15.Bxd7 Nxd7 16.Qb8 Nxb8 17.Rd8 #

You have been ignoring my requests for some description of the inference technique you used to get from the evidence to the conclusion. You understand how crucial this is, so some sort of response is needed.

  Another guess: spotting errors as a fact, besides obvious blunders. Moving from one guess to another, while presenting them as facts.

This is kinda funny!Every game i have ever played--i was playing for a win and was searching for a win [or for a draw if i was far enough behind] and my win percentage is very high. With Black i always play for a win! 

But, no, the theoretical search should be for the optimum result. This could be for a win or draw. 

This is not a guess. It is a fact that out of billions of chess games played there has NOT BEEN ONE GAME SHOWN where someone forced a win without the other player making an error.

Yes, i agree it doesn't get more sure than that.

As to you not being willing to look at evidence [in this case my evidence] please refer to Post #6067 Where you stated: "I don't care why you believe and what it's based on."  This shows a quite unopened mind...

Also ad hominem attacks like you used to do indicated an unopened mind at that time.

  And yet you cannot spot errors, as a fact, as otherwise ‘neutral’ moves may lose by force. Totally possible. So until you rule out  that possibility, as a fact, your ‘ability’ to judge moves as errors remains...a guess.

Your sentence is rather ambiguous. What "guess" do you refer to?  A "guess" about one position? Or do you mean a guess that I make or made? Or do you refer to my guess that the game of chess is a draw when both sides do not make an error?

I have never stated my guess is a solution.           

Actually i am able to spot errors. I do so all the time. Can i spot every single error in every game? no. But i would not have success in chess if i could not spot errors. 

Hate to be the one to tell you, but human beings are not really qualified to determine what is or is not an error in Chess with any authority.

If Carlsen can't win a game against Stockfish "only" 500 ratings points down, you surely at your master-ish level, down 1100 ratings points (at best) are not qualified to determine whether a draw can be forced or not when Stockfish cannot make such a determination, either.  

I mean, if you are 99.9% sure Chess is a forced draw at 2200, then engines at 3000+ rating would have to be forcing draws already, right?  You're like a toddler by comparison, yet...the win ratio for engines is going up, not down.  Maybe they "know" something you don't.

The last time i played USCF otb was in 1973--16 games against a lot of strong players including a GM [who i beat]. My performance rating was approximately 2438 for those 16 games.

However, my preference is and was correspondence chess where I won the US Championship with a score in the Finals of 13 wins, 1 draw, and no losses.  My last rating was above 2520.  However if you were to add in my games in the preliminary rounds my rating would be approximately 2575. 

And i was playing as an amateur.   [so my point is, i am not as low as you think]

However chess engines are now very advanced. Alpha Zero is getting close to the ultimate playing strength [this is my opinion].

But there is something STRONGER than the very best chess engines. and that is what i can now use to analyze games and spot errors in games.

One reason Carlsen cannot win a game vs Stockfish is that chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake. Chess engines have a big advantage vs  the top human players. That advantage is that chess engines can calculate much faster than the best humans. The advantage would be somewhat taken away if humans were given more time to calculate. As it is--the humans are not given this time.

And the win ratio for engines which are playing another engine the same strength is not going up.  Of course if an engine is stronger than another engine--the win ratio could go up.

 Look at history take all the World Championships for example--the draw ratio keeps going up and up. 

Also in the venue which is stronger than the best chess engines--the win ratio also keeps going down.

There is a ton of evidence that chess is a draw.  i cannot give it all here but i have given some of the evidence before and it took several pages...

In the full context of the post CLEARLY I’m stating I don’t care why *IF* your reasons don’t demonstrate 99.99% likelihood (your degree of certainty) of chess being a draw. And I didn’t attack you personally so quit whining about ad hominems.

This is highly misleading. It suggests that precise, certain identification of the losing blunder is always possible after a game is won. It is not. Certainty is not reached by non-exhaustive analysis. A good class of examples is in closed games (eg king's indian) where a space advantage on one side of the board eventually leads to a tactical blow. In general, you might think you find where the defender went wrong but couldn't guarantee they would be ok if they changed that move. You could only guarantee that it appears they would be ok. One could certainly exhibit large numbers of alternative lines earlier in the game that might be ok: this does not prove anything.

Post #2262 in another forum

"Yeah I think so too. He's either a troll, too intellectually dishonest to admit when he is wrong, or incredibly dense. Whichever the case is reason enough not to entertain his nonsense any more."

 On the other subject: "IF your reasons don't demonstrate 99.99% likelihood of chess being a draw"  This is really not sufficient reason to disregard my evidence. It is 99.99% likelihood to me. Does not have to be 99.99% likelihood to you. Maybe it is 90% likelihood to you?  or 60% or 98% to you? That [for an openminded person] is not a good reason to discard a whole lot of evidence.

Actually, i mostly agree with you on this point.

Elroch, i know you are very good in math.

What do you think of my post #6075 [about the bins of small balls!?]

and taking into account post #6097 where i agree you are correct?

That was weeks ago and you’re still whining about it?

I didn’t disregard your evidence, I evaluated it and determined your claim to have proved perfect chess is a draw is woefully unjustified.