Will computers ever solve chess?

What a discussion! I figured it out- the 1st move by player 2 is an error 

but  of course there is always the proverbial stalemate 

so If the second player stalemates the first

then the second player wins,

but if the first player stalemates the second

he gains a loss?

Maybe we can just make some new rules and give the computers another 50 years of work eh?

I don't know just add four more pieces and increase the board to 10 x 10. that will keep computers folks busy.

Memory is not knowledge. AlphaZero has a databank from which it can generate statistics. When it is writing its own algorithms, we can talk about what it knows about chess. As it stands now, Fritz 5.32 knows more, although it is far weaker at playing the game.

Yes, I said that. Other engines know a lot more, but they are weaker. Still, the memory—where knowledge is stored—is way bigger than that of humans.

You are still equating data with knowledge. I think that is an error.

It would be something if computers could mimic humans at easier playing levels.

Why not? Chess has a finite number of states-> Can be solved!

Yes. If storing zillions of moves by a pool of players at a certain level is somewhat overboard, then a better algorithm that favors inferior tactical combinations would be the ideal choice. Right now as you know easier playing levels just mix strong and weak moves. That can still be a challenge to play, but nothing like facing a real person.

  Just like in humans, data is knowledge. Data and its usage. Humans have the same problem: they must use the data they have stored in memory: it’s still knowledge, used or unused. 

Discrete data is not knowledge.

A list of a billion ingredients is data.  A million recipes (with measurements and instructions, not just their names) made from those billion ingredients is knowledge.

Now you can argue about which Alpha Zero has.

Maybe the lingo Is different for computers, not arguing there. But in humans, any piece of information is knowledge. Experience gives birth to knowledge, which is then stored in memory. Next experience uses the previously stored knowledge and will add more of it, changing the present knowledge into a new one. And then the new experience and so on.

Nope.

Data is a necessary component, but is not knowledge. Understanding the data is a small second step. Evaluating the credibility and relevance of the data proceeds from knowledge.

AlphaZero can store chess positions and utilize statistical information from running simulations, but it does this without understanding. It is effective in limited contexts and long time controls.

I'll grant that a great many humans seem to do okay without any knowledge and even operating mostly with bad data. When such people are in power, however, the world become more frightening.

When playing as White (against other chess-playing software), Alpha Zero sometimes wins, and sometimes it draws. When chess is solved, a perfectly played game will always have the same result.

Also, when AZ plays chess, its a game of one imperfect program against another imperfect program. So the win rate only tells you the strength of one program relative to the other. It doesn't say much as to how close it is to having solved chess. Nevertheless, AZ is quite an impressive machine/program. It is tools such as that, which may eventually be instrumental in solving the game.

  Data is knowledge, sir. When it comes to humans. How you use it or not use it, it’s still knowledge. Don’t transfer the computer lingo to humans. There is no such thing as raw data in human memory. The knowledge that gets stored in memory is already the result of tweaking of the sensations that reach the body.Thought comes in and transforms all the sensory input. No raw data, except maybe for computers.

  And on top of that, humans get conditioned by past knowledge of the previous generations. 

 Not interested in these cheap sophisms.

 Information becomes a piece of knowledge once it’s absorbed.

Knowledge is what memory is filled with. Conscious, unconscious, used, not used. Understood, misused. Still knowledge. We’re not looking at different branches of knowledge, but at the whole tree. 

As for understanding, it uses memory, but it doesn’t originate there.

Is that speculation or has it been proven?

You’re forgetting who you’re asking.

It's true. Even if ponz believes that such conclusions are correct, he should see that they are not 100% reliable.