Will computers ever solve chess?

You protested a perceived lack of substantial contributions by contributing nothing of substance.

Characters in stories are bound at least to some degree (usually a lot though) by archetypes and how the audience relates to them.

There are no such "good" or "hero" characters that exist where in the story they cause pain and suffering solely for their own gain. The answer "hero" is not acceptable. At least not without framing the circumstances differently.

This is still being discussed?  

Has the train wreck...i mean highly educational post gotten to the part where people try and sound smart?

 Thanks for the answer NKT73 

I don't care if we disagree, I'm happy as long as you're willing to think about it

  Yes, it was binary,  got that, but I still don't get it: is he trying to build the 'framework'? Not possible, I said that, because that would be a framework to a partial thing--what is known in chess is quite small compared to what is not known. Building an 'efficient' way of applying the rules has probably already dealt with by the present technology.

  The problem remains: calculating all the legal moves from start to finish needs an impossibly fast processor, not a partial framework.

 Right now, as we speak, and it will be live for all to witness!

 Haha! Panic mode. If it was approved by so many people, it must be true...However, I think there are more Buddhists in the world than there are Christians, so they can claim their own share of 'truth'.

 Ye if you see something like the screen you're looking at right now, would it matter if that seeing was not 'approved' by the whole planet? Would it make it a 'non-screen'?

  Conversely, if you don't see something for yourself, would others telling you it is so, make you see it, too? What matters is what you see, not the approval rate of what is supposed to be seen, but can't.

  The 'serpent' is also part of the book...

Not sure what to say. I agree (?)

What I was saying was, view the actions of the characters in a neutral context.

  Yes, that is the fairy story one takes for granted. In other words, people are lazy, deem suffering as inevitable, so trust another and you will be saved, just not while alive, here, on Earth, but there, in the Fantasy Land, after we die and suffering ends anyway, along with the capacity to fantasize.

  But I say suffering can end, here, on Earth, while alive. So I contradict the main interpretation of the Bible.

  From a truly neutral standpoint, the serpent and its 'opposite' are the same.

  It may well be so. But the interpretation of the people reading it is flawed. For instance, people are taking literally what may have meant to be metaphorically. That changes the meaning to a 180.

  You will, but suffering is something that affects everyone, boss or employee, rich or poor, doctor or patient, scientist or bartender.

One idea I find difficult sometimes is the idea of forever.

At one level you say, live forever or be dead forever, who cares, that's not such a difficult or creepy concept.

But let that sink in for a moment... really think about it. Forever. Even if you believe you're dead forever, think of all that time you wont exist, infinite time. Think of the biggest amount of time you can imagine and it's not even 0.000...1% of the time. It's so long it loses all meaning, all connected concepts.

Sometimes I don't care, but sometimes I can register a creepy feeling.

Two sides of the same scale kind of thing? Sure. That's unrelated to my point though, unless you want to elaborate.

How can a supreme being battle much less battle eternally?

It's more like as you said in the part I don't quote. God allows or doesn't allow things. God created evil, and allows evil but doesn't cause evil to happen.

This is another opportunity to try a different context. For example in our world we have just ideas like criminal negligence. Ideas almost all reasonable people can agree with.

This doesn't disprove god, but some people's ideas about god are contradictory.

The relative value of the pieces becomes sometimes a problem for an engine, as well as the correct evaluation of some long term pawn structure deficiencies.

why does nobody say can white be in a zugzwang from move 1

So I already asked about what happens when you combine all-good and all-powerful. Funnily you bring up another consideration: all-knowing.

If god has all the knowledge, there's no need to come to earth as a human to learn it!

Although I suppose you could say it was a symbol for us to remember or something like this.

Some people do.

I like to note how zugzwang correlates with fewer pieces being present and a higher interaction (so to speak) between the two sides. You can think of it like concrete threats are more likely to be present.

In both cases, the initial position (and after white's first move) is very low on both of these (it has many pieces, and no interaction). So for that reason I think it's unlikely the initial position (or after white's first move) is zugzwang.