Will computers ever solve chess?

In terms of objective truth, the answer to this question depends on the definition of "biased". If it is defined in a way which encompasses all human thoughts, then no, there is no thought or action which is not biased (under said definition).

In terms of perceived truth, it is an even simpler question. If one decides that nonbiased thoughts or actions do not exist, then they do not exist (from said perspective).

This is why I prefer to discuss objective truth, rather than perceived truth; a given person's perceived truth is unique, and can be wholly independent from objective truth, thereby rendering any attempt at substantive discussion futile.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure. You're right that I favor mathematical proofs over reasoned speculation. But of course, well written proofs concerning game theory - especially those that have passed the scrutiny of peer-review are quite infrequent.

In any case, I don't trust a lot of the "common sense" statements scattered in this thread. In math there's been many "common sense" statements that were later proven to be wrong. In 1968 Kershner announced the complete list of "all eight" pentagons that tile a plane saying "no more shapes are possible". But just three years ago the math world was stunned when a new shape was found. Kershner's "common sense" was refuted by careful analytical study. I believe this is one of the shapes he overlooked (it has degrees of freedom):

Meanwhile...

TCEC Season 12:  draw percentage 62%, decisive games 38%

Stockfish beat Komodo in decisive games 29-9.

Draw percentages:

Season 12 - 62%

Season 11 - 78%

Season 10 - 76%

Season 9 - 75%

Season 8 - 89%

I was careful with my words. I did not say  you misquoted me--it must have been someone else. It was in a post  you were posting in or responding to. I think maybe the person responding in color did not note his name? 

However the 99.99% etc were estimates of my confidence level that chess is a draw. This does not mean that 99.99% chess is a draw. It is a draw or it is not a draw. It is 100% a draw or it is zero percent a draw if there is a win.

Confidence levels can go up and/or down depending on the evidence. Right now I am VERY confident chess is a draw [just as almost all grandmasters assume chess is a draw]

Chess is very probably not going to be solved. But the next best thing is to study the evidence to build or lessen your confidence level as to the result.

   We are only concerned with the bias regarding the defense of a perceived psychological body. The defense of one’s self-image, the security one gets from attachment to the image of a person, to an idea, to an ideology, to a system, a pattern of thought, which again, provides a sense of security. 

 In this sense, not all thoughts are biased, since building a car, for instance, with all the thoughts involved in that process, do not provide security for the ‘inner body’.

Of course, thoughts like being proud of doing that—inflating the self-image—or identifying with a special group of people who are doing the same thing—thus one becoming ‘special’, ‘superior’, ‘expert’, not just in that field, but as a human being as well—the old ‘you better than the rest’ scenario—then thoughts become biased.

  The first wave is technical, non-biased, the second is biased and it touches everything in one’s daily life. The trick is to get rid of the second wave without damaging the first, as drugs might do—affecting both waves. It must be done intelligently, not forced upon the brain through some chemicals.

 But to get to truth the bias must end. The million dollar question is how?

Is it true in TCEC Chess Championships that humans select the openings?

[that would explain the lower numbers of draws]

A biased mind cannot see what is incorrect, apart from the technical field. Believing one can do that is part of the bias.

 And the bias involves an illusion which is not seen. As long as it’s not seen, the mind cannot see what is ‘correct’.

We all know every_-thing....but             must be made aware, like deevine energy distribution centerre. eh? Do you knough every_-thing>? I think not.

One way you can  tell if someone has a bias is to see if he has a habit of misquoting.

 It’s not about knowing things, but about seeing things now, in the present, with a fresh look.

The biased mind has no clue as to what is positive and what is not, the action of the very bias which is twisting things.

 Wouldn’t solve in Chess be every game would be a draw? 

Preferring an affirmative phrasing of something whose meaning has been understood is part of the bias being discussed.

Again, I have just shown the bias present in the above request. The persistence of its request—when the meaning was understood—is just the bias being pointed out. Irrational, redundant, emotional, but persistent because it’s providing a false sense of security. So that is bias in action, not just discussed theoretically but we could see its actual manifestation in this very discussion.

 It is this lack of flexibility that leads to conflict in interpersonal relations, like ‘you do as I say’, this tendency to control born out of the rigidity of the bias itself, which is the result of attachment to certain patterns, while excluding others. 

  And then this constant judgment—same bias.

The discussion has not even begun, and they have already lost focus of the subject, while they judge other participants. They can never be taken seriously.

Remember Back to the future II? They thought we would have commercial hover boards by 2015,

Then if one is not interested in discussing, please stay away and do not fake an interest by asking questions whose answers they don’t want to hear, and instead lose focus and turn the discussion in a personal, meaningless, personal direction. Just don’t interfere unless you are serious about it, which means leaving the personal burden at the door. 

 I have ignored them for a while but they keep coming back with a fake interest, underneath there is a violent intention to throw mud in the face. Frustrated individuals...

You are the one who is judging here. And you seem to be doing this constantly.

No judging, ponz. That is your interpretation. What to troy is a fact, to ponz is a judgment.