Will computers ever solve chess?

I don't agree that this is evidence that chess is a draw. There is nothing to show that these endgames can be arrived at by perfect play.

You can't study "B" to find the answer to "A".

Those endgames might happen, but nobody knows if they occur in perfect play. Kasparov was obviously a very good chess player, but nobody can say that any game he played was perfect. And Kasparov will lose to an engine. And chess engines do not play perfect chess either.

Those games weren't perfect to begin with. Even a chess engine could have defeated either player from either side from an early point in the game. And chess engines do not play perfect chess either.

We might be talking about different things.

I'm talking about the result of a perfectly played chess game.

No human nor any existing chess engine plays perfect chess.

  It is the religious mask which created the delusion of ‘being introduced’ to the image of a dead man, taken as an alive person. Your own thinking played the trick on you.

  It is this game of like and dislike—completely illogical—that prevents one from seeing the truth.

   And yet he may have not existed, despite you being sure of it.

No human or chess engine always plays perfect chess. However some humans and some chess engines sometimes play a perfect game.

Because you may never have played or even fathomed a perfect game does not mean that other chess players or chess engines have not played a perfect game. 

Really? In what way has the chess world been corrupted?

Depends on what is "B" and what is "A"

Very often one can study "B" to give some evidence for "A"

  After all this time you still don’t see the difference. You are changing the reference point and bending logic.

  ‘Chess is a draw’, for you—the reference point—is a belief, not a fact. From your vantage point, you cannot see it as a fact, which is why you believe it is a fact. 

  Now if you change that reference point, to the result itself ( of a perfect game), then the fact is either/or. However, you don’t have access to that fact, none of us have. You don’t have access to the perspective that can see the fact of chess being a draw or not.

 So again, from your perspective, you believe chess is a draw. We are not debating whether your belief is actually a fact from the perspective that can access that fact. We are only saying, that from your vantage point it is not a fact, but a belief.

 In other words, you don’t know, which is why you believe, but you don’t know it as a fact, from your vantage point. Quite simple logic, if we don’t mix up the reference points.

  That’s what I thought. Silence.

Chess could have a few variations if the present style becomes unpopular. You could play it with no castling, which makes for a good game. These computers make it pretty easy for themselves hiding behind a castle. Most of the game is spent trying to bust open the blasted thing. Who needs it? Nowhere to run nowhere to hide, although a nice defence can be made without castling.

 Then you apparently have not seen many martial arts tournaments!

The silence came because you only gave 4 hours to respond.

You, with your little knowledge of chess seems to assume there is only one set of moves which show a perfect game. In fact there are millions.

And i have already shown a set of moves from the opening position which show a perfect game.

Even if chess were solved as a draw--this would not prove chess is a draw to many people. Because they would be taking the word of some math person or group and that is not proof to them  Because the proof would be so large that it could not be viewed by a human in his life time.

There are some chess players who are unwilling to look at the evidence and will always say it is not a fact that chess is a draw as chess has not been solved.  What they do not  understand is that if chess is solved as a draw the solution would be so massive that they could never see the solution.

Another thing they do not understand that it does not have to be proven that chess is a draw for chess to be a draw.

Most of the things we know to be true have NOT been math proven to be true.  They don't understand this.  

Alpha Zero et al do not "see deeper"...that's the whole point.  Stockfish and other traditional engines process more positions and traverse to deeper plies.  Alpha Zero et throw all the human theory out the window and simply go by what wins over millions of games.  The fact that this mirrors "200 years of chess theory" is obvious...you could say the same thing about a robotic car assembly line vs. a medieval blacksmith forging armor ("these robots don't do anything humans didn't  already learn to do")....but they reproduce that 200 years in a matter of manhours, and then surpass it. 

The fact that no new positional rules have come forth is also obvious...there's nothing new under the sun there.  You might as well ask why these new engines have not discovered that a queen can also move like a knight.  The parameters of the game have not changed.  The new part is that this new generation of engines will correctly learn to value positional rule X over positional rule Y in situation Z, based on pure results without humans tweaking some numbers, which is a much more refined valuation process (which GMs OTB are just guessing at, in the end).

  Stupid post, as always. Garbage. Stop responding with this trash, you are not saying anything. Stupidity upon stupidity.

  Sir, from your point of view, something can only be a fact or a belief. It cannot be both. Only if you crookedly change the reference point, can a fact be a belief. Like, let’s say I can see all the variants and it’s indeed a draw. For me it's a fact, for you—from your vantage point—it’s a belief. Yet we are talking about the same thing. But it all depends on the reference point. In this case it is you, nobody and nothing ( like an engine) else.

 And stop bringing other idiots into the game: other GMs are also guessing, don’t present their own beliefs as facts to support your belief. None of those idiots can factually demonstrate their guesses. 

  And lastly, chess knowledge cannot demonstrate that either, it is based on, ultimately, guesses as well. Perfect moves cannot be deemed perfect by the present knowledge, especially in the beginning or middle of the game.

  As for chess knowledge-wise, you are a joke, when you think your stupid Ponziani refutation has any meaning to any serious player, and when you say that ‘one might be afraid to play 1...e5 because he’s afraid of the Ponziani, which he ignored’. Stupid comments like that reveal a lot.