Will computers ever solve chess?

Thanks for that.  Maybe he'll believe something coming from someone who is not going all  "ad hominem" on him ...

I'm going to ignore all your repetitive arguments and malfeasance except two things.  The first, your statement about Ms. Patriot's post:

"If you bother to read what she said it was "Starting from the dishonest position of "I know chess is a draw." and "I have proven it." [did you notice she used the term "dishonest"?] Clearly she believes people who state chess is a draw are being "dishonest"."

This is you, extrapolating her statement to every player you mistakenly believe backs you up via telepathy (or necrotelepathy ...) somehow.  You, Ponz, are the only a$$hat saying both "I know chess is a draw" AND "I have proven it".  You'll note that even your staunch ally Steinitz did not have the balls to claim that he could prove it.  So, her statement only applies to you,

You can't claim to have a proof and then say that it's top secret and you won't show it.  If you won't show it, you can't prove anything, and you should clearly zip your lip about the whole thing until such time as you can produce something.  The fact that you won't at this point, after reaching an impasse that only your published, finished proof will win for you, is pure ego and petulance worthy of an 8 year old.

The second thing I will comment on is your Kasparov delusion, because you just keep complaining about strawmen and then posting your own anyway...I defy you to quote any statement from me anywhere on any thread during my entire tenure here on chess.com where I attack or disparage Kasparov's playing ability or try to say he is not one of the greatest chess players in history.  Wake up and smell the revisionist delusion.

What I have said about Kasparov that might be considered "less than positive":

- That he and his team made a mistake in trying to prep traditionally "computer confusing" lines and variations instead of just playing the objectively best chess he could play against Deep Blue

- That his ego against Kramnik got in the way, and instead of just leaving the Berlin sit and playing away from it (and then cracking that nut later on after the WCC was over), he smashed his figurative head on a rock over and over convinced he should beat OTB what Kramnik had prepped for.

- That Kasparov is not currently a top player, as he is not playing in rated tournaments 

None of these things remotely qualifies as "disparaging the chess ability of Kasparov".  That...is a straw man argument.

  That post was addressed to ponz. 

 As for perfect games, in 900 or 16 moves, we know nothing about. Nobody has ever been able to recognize a perfect game.

  Possible, yes. But we don’t  know. (Correction from iPad error)

  Now he’s back to belief, no more stating to know—from the top players. Still not understanding the difference.

You may be right. It also depends on how far you can go towards "the edge" without tipping the scales away from draw. The span between draw and loss I speculate is greater even in chess than in checkers, and checkers were reportedly solved to a draw years ago. So I think chess might be even more drawish. However, chess960 (Fischer random) we do know there are positions that might be close to/won for one side right from the start, but it involves an asymmetrical structure of the order of the pieces on the back rank. However, I have played chess960 and let me tell you, it is a true thrill, every game is new so to speak.

Just to comment on the discussion of belief versus knowledge here: Yes, it is true, chess has not been solved, and there is no scientific proof that you cannot force a win if you are ultra ultra smart. But my guess (based of belief, gut feeling, intuition, experience) if you may, would be, that I find it rather more plausible to speculate that the game would offer resources enough for both sides to be able to defend to a draw, rather than there being resources born out of a half move advantage in the opening to force a win. In my opinion, the span between win and draw (and loss and draw) is so great in chess, that even with perhaps not completely perfect play, one might still be able to force a draw. - My proof of concept, from something many of us has experienced over the board, would be those endgames, where you are ahead a little bit of material, but still cannot win, because of tactical or positional or material quirks of the game. So to narrow it down, in order to force a win in chess, one would suppose that it takes a certain amount of material or positional advantage, that it is speculative to assume would or could arise out a mere first move (half move) advantage. It is not proof, but an educated guess.

You can have one of those games that a checkmate is reached in about 5 moves. by white. So white played a perfect game because it ended in the least amount of moves. Black didn't play a good game but white played a perfect game.

You can also have one where black checkmates white in 2 moves, except white has to play rather poorly. (fool's mate). ;-)

  Perfect game means perfect for both sides. In the above example, White didn’t play a perfect game, since if Black played decently there is no way to prove that those moves played by White were perfect. Back to square one.

  Same here. No way to prove either side played perfectly.

Ok, thanks - I agree it's possible that a perfect game with 16 moves might exist. Or more moves. Or fewer moves.

Haha! We don’t know. 

 However, it can safely be ruled out that if chess is either a win for White or Black, losing in 16 moves is not a perfect game.

   The only way it could be perfect would be if chess is a draw and certain moves must be played to avoid losing (in rather a lot of moves), and at some point in the opening a perpetual check position would be reached.

I don't think that has been proven. There may be a perfect game where one side can force a win in 16 moves. Or do you know of a mathematical study that shows it's impossible?

they already have solved it, chess is a convincing win for black

  You’re right, there is no mathematical proof. Just from a practical viewpoint, I can’t imagine a forced win in a mere 16 moves, that’s all. Losing in 16 moves simply suggests to me that one player went terribly wrong rather early on.

You'd think Vickalan would be good at this sort of question since he's Mr. Variant Chess and all and would jump right on this...

- The fastest mate for white if black does nothing to hinder *or help* is 4 moves, and requires at least two pieces from white to reach the right placement.  From the starting positions, the queen and bishops can reach such positions readily, knights and rooks are slower and easily impeded by pawns.

- That means black only has to hold out 12 moves by defending.

- If black merely matches white's development piece for piece and trades off where possible, that is up to 6-7 more moves black can hold out pretty easily, and if white avoids trades or moves around simple countering moves, that loses the same number or even more moves for white anyway.

- That means black only has to hold out 5-6 more moves to reach 16 moves.

- If black develops the pieces adjacent to the king, that's 2 more moves that white must spend forcing the black king directly or covering escape squares.

- That means black only has to hold out 3-4 more moves...

It took me all of 5 minutes to figure that a forced mate in <13 moves is probably impossible logically.  If any rigor were applied here I'm pretty sure the people on this thread could prove a forced mate in 16 not possible...

Probably...pretty sure...?

I was asking about a mathematical proof. Not guesswork or speculation.

If we can take the strongest computer players today as any sort of hint, you do not see them finding a sureproof way to win in a short number of moves. Many of these games goes the distance. True, computer are not yet as good that they can calculate everything, but they may be a pointer hinting at what may be found in the end.