Will computers ever solve chess?

  The Bible certainly doesn't last forever: in a huge-enough catastrophy all books may be destroyed.

   Also, saying something is the truth doesn't make it so.

  To say that, one will have to calculate all possibilities. Otherwise, it's just speculation, and from a practical point of view, not a reasonable one: everyone feels more comfortable with the white pieces and vice-versa. With white, one gets an easier game, at least up to a point.

In this thread, all sorts of ridiculous positions have been claimed, including that one. 

This thread is a clear example of what's good and bad about the internet. There are occassionally interesting and informed opinions, but they are buried in a trash heap of inane posts. 

At least s2bog has decided to create his own thread on his attempt to reinvent the wheel. 

I like to think that there may be some sort of formula to always playing the best moves that could be created fundamentally from the rules of chess and the size of the board alone. It be a series of instructions and follow something like this:

#1: If you have a pawn on f2 refer to #246,377

#2: If your king is on e1 refer to #3. If it is not refer to #566

#3: If O-O is legal refer to #9,100. If it is not legal refer to #4

#4: If all 32 pieces are all the board refer to #5. If not refer to #7,117

#5: If you are in check, refer to #899,101. If not, refer to #6

etc.)

You would start at 1 and continuing to follow each instruction until eventually you got to something like

650,455: Play Qh4

There would be a number for every legal move plus a number of number for every possible instruction.

This list would be an astronomical number of instructions long. I am not sure how many legal moves there are in chess but I would imagine the list would be at least a trillion instructions long, maybe as short as a billion. I of course am getting this model off of the idea of a universal Turing machine.

The list would be generated through a combination of cleverness and fundamental brute force logic concerning the rules of chess.

If chess is solved I would imagine a computer (practically a general AI at this point) generating an algorithm like this. It seems like the most plausible or perhaps just the most interesting way to me. The reason is that it doesn't use the storage space of every possible position and the way it would be done would be fundamentally provable as perfect.

   Jesus didn't end suffering, so he's irrelevant. Nobody can end suffering for another. There are many perceived escapes from this fact, but in reality there are no escapes from suffering. One must face it, not shy away from it into a fairy tale.

In my ideal world, god interacts with us freely without forcing us to do anything.

I agree though that this should be a chess topic. I feel bad for posting off topic for so long.

  The concept of a 'Serpent' is born from the concept of a 'God'. The concept of 'Hell' from the concept of 'Heaven'. In the world of concepts, there is no answer.

  Yet despite his letting go of, that man's suffering didn't end. I think we aren't quite aware to what extent we suffer, even if the body seems healthy.

Well as long as we're bringing up unrelated points.

To get more technical, I'm not sure the serpent represents the devil or satan in that story, even though I tried to use it that way.

Also I don't think the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible has a place of suffering called Hell... at least not how modern Christians understand it. IIRC "hell" wasn't a metaphysical place, it was just a grave... where you stayed dead, forever.

 As opposed to 'Heaven', where you never die. Same difference: all opposites contain each other.

Not sure why you like to point out the two sides of the same coin concept over and over.

Especially in this case, where it's not actually applicable.

  The law is just a parody of justice. People who cannot see cannot be held responsible, especially by other people who equally don't see.

  Obeying the law or not, people suffer. No book or person can help ending it, no concept of the Supernatural, no theory, no drug, no prayer.

  It has to be individually tackled, never collectively.

  It is a bad argument even if one doesn't look at what happens when a criminal is being pardoned. Because the story was supposed to show that everyone was saved, not just one poor chap.

  All opposites are the same, which means they don't exist as opposites, except linguistically, specifically in this field. From the state of fear, one projects the concept of courage. But the fearful mind knows nothing else, so its concept of courage is but fear's baby, it is fear. Or the state of being violent, projecting the concept of non-violence, when the mind is violent. Thus the concept of non-violence, being born out of violence, also contains violence. A violent mind can only create violent things.

  The lack of fear doesn't come through its 'opposite' reaction, courage, which is a continuation of the same thing. Simply, fear must end. It doesn't end through its opposite.

Darkness doesn't exist except as the absence of light, there is no cold without heat, etc. It's interesting to try to define lots of things this way.  But I don't know if you're trying to make any point beyond that. This is my main question.

Also, particularly when talking about supernatural things, it's possible to give non-dependent definitions.

But we could start with bravery and fear. You could define bravery as action in the face of fear which is motivating you to not act. In this case they're not opposites, they're just different. Fear as a feeling, and bravery as an action.

 That's what I said, in this field.

  That 'bravery' is motivated by fear, it is fear's baby.The action motivated by the feeling has the same feeling behind it, obviously. So such action is the action of the same feeling, the action of fear. Physically acting or not is irrelevant: the decision not to act is stil an action.

  But the absence of fear is something else. It has nothing to do with the action of the feeling of fear, bravery, courage, or what not.

  The whole point is for the feeling to end, not for the feeling to generate a 'new' action. It is not new, unless the feeling has ended. Then only, a truly new action can begin.

Can God create a game not even he can solve?

so a person who is fearless doesn't look brave. Lol.

 Man has created the game, let's not put it on someone else's shoulders.

   It not only looks differently, it is different. Bravery is not the same as lacking fear. It's just the word 'fearless', which evokes certain images in our brain, which seems like a contradiction. Which is why I prefer 'lack of fear'.