Will computers ever solve chess?

Oh! It was narcissistic of me to assume that I'm the destination just because there's stickying happening.

I don't think they know Ponz, no, and given my benevolent nature I'm going to try to preserve that.

No, I didn't ask why it "hasn't been ruled out".  I asked you (and it's far from the first time) why you feel your analysis, which claims that chess has a good chance of being solved in as little as 18 years, not that it just can't be ruled out, is supportable (since you have never admitted it was in any way inaccurate, you must therefore still support it, right?).  But you can't answer that, and you never will, because you are still pretending you never said or believed your own analysis.  A pretty sure sign that you (A) know your analysis is and has always been ****, and (B) that you don't have the self-esteem to either own up to it or fix it.  At least anyone can see that you understand your own limitations, which is something you have over Ponz, I guess.

"and when I show it"

...still waiting.

The math concepts that I show don't say anything about the statistical chance of chess being solved in any given time-frame. You are having an argument with something or someone that does not exist.😝

"So, with distributed computing, using about 2000 computers, and the assumptions above, we have a problem that can conceivably be solved in 15-20 years."

That is your summary quote.  Your words...and not an offhand one liner which is all you can usually muster, either, it's the very conclusion of your most detailed foray into the numbers around this problem.  You not only say it can be solved in 15-20 years (18 by your flawed analysis)...you think it can be solved in that timeframe with current technology, and not even, say, some robust hardware like Alpha Zero runs on parallelized and beefed up with tons of storage and memory, but by a small 2000 PC server farm or by some spare CPU cycles co-op effort like SETI is using to search for signals.  Essentially you're saying that if, say, Google (who runs an estimated 900,000 servers) turned just one room of racks from their search engine server farms towards this problem, it would just be solved in 15-20 years.

So...yeah...your pilfering of Ponz's favorite strawman cop-out is not going to fly at all.  Existence...own it.

Then we would need to be very skeptical that this has been done as probably the proof that this has been done would take many lifetimes to read.

But, people like me would say: "I told you it was a draw!"

Dead in the middle of little Italy
little did we know that the riddle of
middlegames didn't mean diddly

We learn to live with it. There's only one best human player, and there's always been a better way to play, whether we created a machine to do it or not. That fact is increasingly harder to ignore now, which is why it gets more attention, but it never held us back from playing before. Why should it now?

computers solved draughts and people are playing it 

they said people will stop playing chess when computeres start beting humans NOPE

I agree. See following wiki-article:

Whether a game is solved is not necessarily the same as whether it remains interesting for humans to play. Even a strongly solved game can still be interesting if its solution is too complex to be memorized; conversely, a weakly solved game may lose its attraction if the winning strategy is simple enough to remember (e.g. Maharajah and the Sepoys). An ultra-weak solution (e.g. Chomp or Hex on a sufficiently large board) generally does not affect playability.

Exactly. It would be unfortunate if we were unable to enjoy anything that someone or something else could do better.

Yes, right now it seems like engines are threatening chess because they are still enough close to humans in strength but are clearly dominant in every situation...but once engines have left humans far behind in the dust, then humans will go back to playing other humans without the stigma of engines.  Much the same way that runners and horseback riders don't get all butthurt that a Formula 1 Racer can blow them away...that ship sailed long ago.  It becomes obvious and conclusive and therefore irrelevant.

Engines are close to humans?

That's news to me.

It's pretty standard for even pro players to ignore the engine and choose practical lines instead (of course this is even more true for the rest of us).

Engines are close to humans?

That's news to me.

It's pretty standard for even pro players to ignore the engine and choose practical lines instead (of course this is even more true for the rest of us).

A human will never be able to memorize the solution because the variation would be too long and hard to grasp. Even today computers make moves humans would never consider.

I think he meant that computers aren't as weak as they were decades ago.

.... how was that posted twice. It didn't even show until @complainer posted.

The wonders of chess.com never cease.

That is indeed correct. What part of the analysis do you not understand? Please be specific without reverting to your usual hyperbole or insults. Or else just be quiet.

Pretty sure he's saying in the future engines will be so dominant that no one will care.

However it's not a perfect comparison.

I think a key element of chess (and similar games) is how it's tied to our image of what it means to be human.

Most people tend to regard the human mind as having non-physical (usually spiritual) properties, and that our intelligence is unique in all the universe (for all intents and purposes). So things like creativity and intelligence often take on a mystical essence... but if a soulless machine that just crunches numbers can surpass us it's uncomfortable. So rather than losing faith in humanity, they choose to lose faith in chess.

Although with more and more advances in AI, this effect will probably diminish over time.

as long as AI cant write more beautiful literature than humans i dont feel intimidated i know that chess calculation beats creativity i can live with that

I think that will eventually be easy for AI.

Music, art, literature...