Will computers ever solve chess?

Oy.  You're one of those.  I'll answer this tomorrow (or maybe the next day depending how my holiday ends up going).

I have great hope for the future of computing. I just do not think computers will solve chess.

I have great certitude about chess being a draw with best play because of all the evidence which points that way.

Chess computers are wonderful but so far they do not seem to be able to think outside the box. I as a human can think outside the box and that is why sometimes i could find the answers to chess problems that the best chess computers were unable to find.

  Computers too come up with surprising solutions outside the human box...

Never. 😅😅 sometimes computers also get confused by humans, and reality of chess that is "human created the chess, not computers.

Whatever happened to quantum computing? As in, wasn't that the tech which was going to solve all this stuff?

Oh crap, guys! Things are getting serious now!

A one liner from a sockpuppet who is 5 days old...how original.  Who could it be?  *Yawn*

Pfft.

5 day old accounts. What a chump.

Dude needs to get on my level... my account is over twice as old as his!

(gross, in just 5 days he friended 80+ users, and it looks like nearly all of them have female avatars)

...and a third of those might even be female ....

You need to do more reading; here's something "light" to get you started: https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/limitsqc-draft.pdf

If you're feeling up to it, you could then peruse some of Aaronson's more scholarly material on the subject. In any case, the bottom line is that quantum computers can only produce efficient solutions for problems in the BQP complexity class (which might be a mere subset of the NP class), while chess has been proven to be EXP-complete when generalized naturally to an n x n board (see  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0097316581900169 for a proof of the latter result).

^^^^ Nah. Sounds like too much work to me.

Basically quantum computers will never replace regular desktop computer. They're only faster at some things. Chess is not one of those things (even though standard chess is in P)

WHY I AM CONVINCED CHESS IS A DRAW WHEN NEITHER SIDE MAKES AN ERROR

1. The grandmasters assume chess is a draw. When they do their analysis from the opening position They know that White has a slight advantage but they also know it is nowhere near enough to force a win. Often when playing other players equal to them--they will try for a win with White and try for a draw with Black. But they know chess is a draw with best play.

[the stronger the player from Class D to Class A to master to grandmaster--the more likely the player will know chess is a draw.]

Some have declared to me that I do not have proof that the top chess players assume the opening position is a draw. This is not correct. If you are a strong enough player all you need to do is to look at annotated games of grandmasters and supergrandmasters

and you will see this. Or you can listen to interviews of the top players and you will see they assume the opening position is a draw.

I remember when checkers [also known as "draughts"] was assumed to be a draw by the top players. Some received a lot of vitriolic for their assumptions but were later proven correct when checkers was "solved".

Here is a quote from cobra91 [on chess.com] which helps to sum up this point:

btickler wrote:

Point made on TCEC, though increasing draw rates could definitely turn out to be a "false positive" type of test, since it only takes one narrow set of lines to force a win (or one, but I would highly doubt it could turn out to be just a single line in the entire tree).

cobra91 replied:

A forced win for White (or Black, for that matter) would not involve just a single line, or even just one narrow set of lines. It would require every single defense for one side to be refuted, which would mean that the best assessments that humanity can currently muster are wrong -- and not just wrong in one opening variation, but in dozens upon dozens of opening variations. Modern theory would have to be wrong about every single line ever analyzed, in fact, at least within the confines of what Black (or White) can opt for against the hypothetically winning moves (which would necessarily have to include several broad categories of openings, at the very least).

A forced win for one side would also imply that existing theory has been regressing for quite some time now, at least in the "big picture" sense. Most of the significant breakthroughs in the computer era have been of the equalizing variety. In many lines where White was believed to have an advantage, defensive resources and/or counterplay opportunities are being found. Meanwhile, only the most dubious sidelines are even considered refuted, at the moment. As any serious correspondence player would tell you if asked, the paths to even a practical glimmer of an advantage appear to be getting slowly but surely closed off: https://www.iccf.com/event?id=52852

2. From my 69 years of playing and studying chess, I know chess is a draw. Having played masters and grandmasters reinforces my view. Having studied the games of grandmasters and supergrandmasters reinforces my view.

Having authored chess books and reading chess books reinforces my view. Looking at chess on youtube reinforces my view.

Everything points one way--chess is a draw.

3. Looking back at World Championship Matches for the past 100 years we can see a progression. There are more and more draws played by these top players. This is because the fewer mistakes

there are--the more likely the game will end in a draw.

Over-the-board World Championship Matches: There has been a lot

of controversy over what was a World Championship match and even

sometimes--who was the World Champion? However it has become very clear from looking at matches and World Championship matches for the last 100 years that there have been more and more draws in these matches as players became stronger. This is also a very good indication that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error.

4. ICCF Correspondence chess is about the strongest chess one can find. This is because there is a combination of a strong chess engine with a strong player.

With the strong player to guide the strong chess engine the play is stronger than a chess engine alone. Top over-the-board grandmasters and supergrandmasters use the games from ICCF Correspondence in their study of chess openings.

Looking at ICCF Correspondence Chess [it is now played with the help of chess engines]. We see a progression of more and more draws.

When I played in the 7h USA Correspondence Chess Championship Final round--I had only 1 draw in 14 games. [13 wins, 1 draw, and no losses] 96.5% [I did not use a chess engine]

Now looking at a more recent winner of this event we find:

16th USA Championship winner had 5 wins, 1 loss, and 6 draws.

[8 points out of 12] 66.67%

Looking at ICCF Correspondence World Championships Finals we find:

13th World Championship Finals winner had 10 wins and 6 draws [13 out of 16] 81.25%

16th World Championship Finals winner had 8 wins and 8 draws [12 out of 16] 75%

22nd World Championship Finals winner had 7 wins and 9 draws [11 1/2 out of 16] 71.8%

25th World Championship Finals winner had 5 wins and 10 draws [10 out of 15] 66.67%

26th World Championship Finals winner had 5 wins and 11 draws [10 1/2 out of 16] 65.6%

27th World Championship Finals winner had 3 wins and 13 draws! [9 1/2 out of 16] 59.4%

28th World Championship Finals winner had 5 wins and 11 draws [10 1/2 out of 16] 65.6%

Here is a cross table of the Final Round of the Latest ICCF World Championship Match [the 29th]

1 RUS 140915 GM Dronov, Aleksandr Surenovich 2676

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 9.5 out of 16

2 POL 420563 SIM Oskulski, Jacek 2528

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 9.0 out of 16

3 CRO 900070 GM Ljubicic, Leonardo 2604

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 9.0 out of 16

4 POR 390086 GM Neto, Horácio 2602

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ . ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 8.5 out of 16

5 ENG 211305 GM Robson, Nigel 2619

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8.5 out of 16

6 ITA 240090 GM Finocchiaro, Fabio 2606

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 8.5 out of 16

7 ROU 440534 GM Serban, Florin 2635

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 8.5 out of 16

8 GER 82299 SIM Schwetlick, Thomas 2466

½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 8.0 out of 16

9 ITA 249221 GM Vassia, Elio 2618

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8.0 out of 16

10 SLO 480135 GM Borštnik, Aleš 2583

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8.0 out of 16

11 GER 83246 GM Mahling, Thomas 2575

½ ½ ½ . ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.5 out of 16

12 GER 80888 GM Busemann, Stephan 2606

½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.5 out of 16

13 GER 81313 SIM Windhausen, Georg 2505

0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½A ½ 7.5 out of 16

14 ESP 160468 GM Manso Gil, Ángel-Jerónimo 2567

½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.0 out of 16

15 POR 390473 GM Silva, António Augusto M. C. 2550

0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.0 out of 16

16 RUS 141241 GM Turkov, Vladimir Sergeevich 2533

½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½A ½ ½ ½ 6.5 out of 16

17 GER 81015 SIM Schmidt, Theo 2358

0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 6.5 out of 16

The winner of the 29th ICCF Correspondence Chess Championship

had 3 wins and 13 draws and no losses out of 16 games.

The person who came in last place had 3 losses and 13 draws out of 16 games.

Clearly as we have strong humans with strong chess engines--[known as Centaur Chess]-- Looking at the winners of the USA Correspondence Chess Championships and the winners of the World Correspondencce Chess Championships we notice as time goes by there are more and more draws. This is a clear indication that with chess played at high levels -- there are fewer and fewer mistakes and the results are coming out with more and more draws.

Recent Chess.com chess engine Match between Stockfish [rated 3400] and Houdini [rated 3407]

This was a 20 game match between 2 very strong chess engines. There were 15 draws out of 20 games.

Stockfish won the match by a narrow margin--3 wins and 2 losses and the rest draws.

I have personally looked at a couple of ICCF Corrspondence Chess crosstables between very strong players and found the winners had something like 10 draws and 2 wins and the bottom players of

these crosstable had something like 10 draws and 2 losses. And the players in the middle had 12 draws!!

This is the strongest form of chess--even stronger than the best

chess engines. [it is well known that a human guiding a strong chess engine is stronger than just a chess engine without human guidance]

All of this is very strong evidence that chess is a draw with best play [or when neither side makes an error]

5. There have been billions of chess games played in the last 200 years. There has not been one game out of all of these billions of games where it has been shown that either White or

Black won by force from the opening position. This is not a

coincidence. Clearly it is good evidence and more evidence that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. Believe me

if some chess player ever found a forced win from the opening position that person could use his knowledge to become a

multimillionaire.[and, sadly, chess itself might be diminished]

Now some will say that the billions of chess games played is only a very small percentage of the possible games which could be played.

This is true but looking at the zillions of chess games which could be played 99.9999999999999999999999999% of these games would be nonsense gsmes where both sides were making errors

almost every move. 1. a4 f6 2. Ra2 Kf7 ilk. [and worse as the game continues] Trillions [or more] games with 5 knights

or 6 bishops etc.

Some do not like to admit this but chess playing in general has become stronger every decade for the past 200 years. Chess players are understanding more and more about chess.

The top chess players rated 2700 and above know a lot about chess--yes they lose to chess engines rated 3400 but think of the reasons they lose to these chess engines?

A human cannot calculate nearly as fast as a chess engine. A chess engine might calculate at a million positions a second.

This is a great advantage to a chess engine--to make a fair fight--give the human more time for each move--maybe 10 to 20

20 days for each move? And then there would be a lot of draws...[as happens in todays Correspondence Chess]

Also a chess engine can go on and on--a human does not have that stamina. The current crop of top chess players know as much as

the top chess engines --it is just that they cannot think and calculate as fast.

There are times when a human can solve chess positions better

than the best chess engines. A human can be creative and chess engines cannot. At the age of 75 I solved two problems [given by a chess grandmaster on chess.com] that the strongest chess engines could not solve.

6. Here is another piece of evidence that chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake:

It is sometimes quite hard to win in the endgame even with a pawn advantage. Sometimes being 2 pawns ahead is not enough to win. Sometimes 3 or 4 pawns up is not enough to win.

Most of us know a king and 2 knights usually cannot force a win vs a lone king.

There are positions where one side has a bishop and a protected pawn vs a lone king and cannot win.

There are thousands of positions where one side has a king and 4 pieces against a lone king and cannot force a win.

Clearly this is another indication that it takes a lot to win a chess game...

Ponz, we already know the evidence points to chess being a draw.

You're arguing with the wind.

When people point out you don't know 100% for sure, you should just agree, and we should all move on.

Evidence and proof are two different things.

I agree chess is a draw with best play, but I admit there is no proof, only evidence.

Anyone can say they think chess is a draw. But it's not proof. Opinions aren't that interesting. But proving that chess is a draw would be big news! (or that White wins, or Black wins).😯

Ironically, the most commonly cited number in these discussions (concerning the task of solving chess) is probably both the least accurate and least relevant number to ever appear in a related mathematical paper. The total game tree complexity of chess is much, much larger than 10^120, because the number of possible games is (in terms of approximations) determined solely by the number of moves that a game can theoretically consist of, rather than the average number of moves that a practical game normally consists of. And even when taking the 50 move rule into account, it's easy to demonstrate that games can easily last for hundreds or even thousands of moves, at least in theory. So 10^1200 would surely be a more accurate estimate of the game tree's actual size than 10^120.

On the other hand, if we discount the 50 move rule (a common convention when compiling endgame tablebases), then the only natural termination condition (to ensure that all games remain finite in length) to use is the 2-fold repetition rule (more efficient and elegant than 3-fold repetition, since it is easily provable that if a forced win exists in a given position, it can always be executed without ever repeating that position or any subsequent position). The longest games would be produced by visiting as many distinct positions as can be reached while avoiding repetitions; given that there are 16 total pieces in the initial position (not including pawns), most of which can theoretically reach every square on the board, it's pretty safe to say that 10^16 would be a very conservative estimate for this value. Thus, even if we assume an unrealistically low average branching factor of ~10^0.1, the result is a weak lower bound of 10^10^15 for the game tree complexity of chess.

Of course, none of the above estimates are particularly relevant to the task of solving chess, because a properly designed solution algorithm would not traverse the game tree in an exhaustive manner; instead, positions would be added to a sorted database after determining their game-theoretic values, allowing the program to immediately evaluate and cut branches that transpose to identical positions. An optimized algorithm would also employ move selection techniques (attempting to select optimal moves as often as possible), and would evaluate wtm positions as winning for White as soon as a single winning move was found. Additionally, btm positions would be evaluated as drawn (or better) as soon as a move yielding that evaluation was found.

I've already explained why, if it existed, a forced mate in 16 moves or less would have been found by now (see page 392). Note that the points made in post #7897 (page 395) also apply, except that in this case, we're discussing the possibility of a short forced win, as opposed to merely a forced win.

I hope this comment wasn't intended to be deliberately provocative. Practically speaking, there does have to come a point when a consensus of evidence is acknowledged as having a certain level of meaning, depending on how easily it can be refuted with contradictory evidence. Tautological arguments such as, "If it cannot be proven that p is false, then p might be true," are not very useful outside the narrow realm of pure mathematics, and they certainly are not especially constructive in the context of trying to have a substantive discussion. 

Arguably, those two extra 9's (highlighted for emphasis) are the primary reason why this debate has lasted for some 100+ pages. At one point, you stated 99.99% certainty that chess was drawn with optimal play (and 99.995% certainty for something that most would consider a proven fact). This confidence level was later raised to 99.999%, and then increased once more to 99.9999%.

So despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that the game-theoretic value of chess is indeed a draw, it is worth mentioning that the lack of consistency with regard to the above confidence levels was essentially an invitation to be attacked by anyone who does not happen to be quite as thoroughly convinced of your assessment.