Will computers ever solve chess?

I was talking about a hypothetical game.

To me it just seems like a classification game. Bravery us a subset of fear lets say.

But if you try to form an entirely new classification, things get too abstract I think... because everything could be defined as a subset of something. To be completely unrelated seem beyond imagination.

you're not the kind of person I would talk to Troy, so don't answer my posts, you might think you are the smartest ass on the planet but your posts are as dopey as tomtrytoshaves.

you define bravery your way and everyone else at least can know what they actually mean by it.

Under certain conditions god will have paradoxes yes.

All knowing, all good, and all powerful are not logically possible to combine. Luckily for believers, supernatural things don't have to follow what we think of as reality.

So the answer is, yes, God could create a game so hard he can't solve it.

But then if he wanted, he could also solve it

  The same 'big-boobs' person who suffers from a rare disease of changing identities every 3-4 days or so, despite the fact she's not saying anything.

  It must be a new disease...

he could create a game with two pawns on the same file, only able to move forward and capture sideways, first to promote a pawn wins and no draws are allowed.

  Any game, it's still our production, out of boredom and what not.

  I agree, from your point of view. Because we haven't experienced anything new, it's just the old repeating itself, in other forms.

  But the old can end, oh, it can.

His reply to you made sense, you just have to think a little abstractly. Fearless and bravery are definitely sometimes synonyms. But at the same time it's possible to give them distinct qualities to where they're different.

A rose by any other name kind of thing... the words don't matter, it's the ideas. His idea is that there's a state of being which is not a subset of fear, maybe not even a subset of emotional at all. This person may appear to act bravely, but bravery wouldn't be an accurate description of him.

That would be why I asked if god could do it. If a trait X is required for one to make a game, and god lacks trait X, then god cannot create a game at all, from which it follows that he cannot create a game he can't solve.

I know he thinks everything is psychological, and in thought every opposite has the same root. bravery is not caused by fear, nor is it the opposite of fear, which makes it fear unless you are troy.

New way to frame the problem: Will a computer ever be created which will never lose to any subsequent computer?

I would argue the answer is no.

What lead up to this was actually the rational I used when I first decided I didn't believe god exists, because to me, God couldn't be a subset of anything, it would have to be completely other. Something infinitely unimaginable by definition.

Anyway, now you're telling me something completely new is imaginable, so I'm interested

  But the line of reasoning that accepts that god is a person which can create stuff leads nowhere. It shows only the thinking behind it: that we created an image which can act like us, rather than the other way around.

  I'm not saying god doesn't exist. But it's certainly not an entity living in space.

  Not quite. If it is imaginable, it is not new, it is old. That was the point before: an old state imagines a 'new' state, but what it imagines is still part of the old.

God is in quantum superposition! I'm glad he never put a cat in a box. Or did. Or did and didn't at the same time.

Hmm, that's interesting.

The way I imagined it, engines will draw each other 100% of the time before they play perfect chess.

that may be an unsuccessful attempt to get the thread back on topic Ozzie. your heart was in the right place, but the thread has been been hijacked by an ultimate wiseguy.

So where do new things come from?

lol