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] 

That's essentially "methinking the conclusion". Not what one would call reasoning.

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]

If your memory were better, you'd recall that Smyslovfan and I defended your playing strength and credentials when somebody would not believe them (and on this very thread, I believe).  I know your playing strength.  Now it's time to pony up and admit that are not anywhere near 2500 anymore, due to your own admitted diagnosis (was it Alzheimer's or dementia?  Not sure, but something affecting cognitive reasoning).  This is one reason why you and your buddy in Ponziani Power had been all but accused of using outside assistance in your Votechess games.  You all but admitted it yourself in 150+ pages Cheating Forum thread about the Ponziani Power vs. Bobby Fischer Group game.

You have a hard time accepting that you are not playing at your peak anymore.  I think 2200-2300 was generous enough here.  I have great respect for your accomplishments, but you need to "keep it real".

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

This is as unfounded as your 99.9% claim.  Statements like this make it clear you are just guessing and are not really sure of anything.

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.

Yes, yes...player plus engine beats engine alone.  This does not mean you can recognize and interpret engine's "errors" in positional play. 

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. 

Draw rates between players/engines playing themselves are, quite logically, higher than normal.  As for even strengths for different engines, TCEC results this last time around not only had a relatively high "decisive" rate...even black won some games in the championship round.

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. 

Human play is far behind and all but irrelevant to this discussion.

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

...I doubt that the win ratio for centaur Chess is actually going down in recent times (when engines were 3150+ rating), it's already rock bottom.  Please give us some stats for this claim.  

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...

Comments above in blue.

The ratio of draws to wins is not good evidence that chess is a draw. Simply disagree with this.  

Whatever the true result of chess, as play gets more accurate, you would expect lower variance in results because the errors are smaller. Yes, you would expect lower variance in the results and if [with the lower variance] the results head for one result--this is very telling. 

This can increase the number of draws regardless of the true perfect result. If chess was a win--why wouldn't  that increase the number of wins?  There is an increase in draws precisely because, with best play, chess is a draw.

The more relevant statistic is white's score. This seems to rise with strength, right up to the level of the current very strongest computer players. Certainly, it is still a lot nearer 0.5 than 1.0, but any interpretation of this depends on how close to perfection current players are. I think it is possible for perfection to be over 4000 Elo: I am very unsure about the actual level. My guess is around 4100 Elo. I am unsure also. 

If the fairly high ratio of draws to wins at the very highest level (eg 3:1) makes anyone feel chess is a win, first of all at the very highest levels--the cross tables i have seen put the draws about 8 or 9 to 1 over wins.  That does not make me feel chess is a win at all!

imagine an ending where white has a forced win but it requires great precision and where black can secure a draw if white goes astray at one of many stages. It is not inconceivable that chess itself is similar.  This is possible. not at all likely from the evidence i gave, but possible, and you refer to an ending not about the position from the start of the game. 

Obviously if white has a practical advantage, white giving up a small practical advantage will often leave the game drawn. very often not giving up the small practical advantage leaves the game drawn. And sometimes when the practical advantage is increased--the game is still drawn!

The player at a practical disadvantage may have more opportunities to make what appear to be modest errors that are crucial and lose.  This is obviously true...

Note that even thinking like this reveals very hazy knowledge of the truth:Thinking about what? Do you think i do not know what a practical advantage is? 

there are in truth no small advantages and the only mistakes are blunders that change the score. this sentence is rather ambiguous. I think you mean there is a difference between a practical advantage and a real, forcing, advantage. I agree that to lose a game one must make an error/you can call it "blunder" which changes the theoretical score of the game.  However in practical play, one can make a blunder and still win--happens all the time... My discussions are always about errors which change the theoretical result of the game.  I could go on and on about practical advantages. There are more to practical advantages than the positions on the chess board. I always play for a win even though i know that chess is a draw with best play.

All the rest is just practical considerations for players who can't tell which positions are winning (i..e. all of us).  Actually if you were to place 100 random positions at random on a chess board I would average over 97% knowing if the position was a win, loss, or a draw.  You could do this also.   

I am sure you realise that all discussion of practical advantages and imprecise play is irrelevant to the question. Only precise play and theoretical values matter. We don't have a precise grasp on these for all but a small fraction of positions.

Lots of laughs--i think i am outnumbered here!

Exactly! Perfect play is easy to establish with, say, mate in 3 on the board.

But after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6  - we have NO IDEA if any of the moves were perfect, nor the perfect response(s). We would have to exhaust an astronomically large number of game variations, far beyond the ability of any human or computer.

I am sure you realise that all discussion of practical advantages and imprecise play is irrelevant to the question. Only precise play and theoretical values matter. We don't have a precise grasp on these for all but a small fraction of positions.

Have you an explanation for the fact that as players get stronger, there is a subtle tendency for white to get a higher score? Surely strong players should become better at achieving the theoretical result, at least on average, rather than being worse at it than weaker players?

You don't claim to know, you claim to have a very strong belief that you have suggested would justify odds of 1 to 9999 on.