Will computers ever solve chess?

You guys keep disappointing me. I drop in every now and then to see if you've solved chess, and mostly you are skiving off bickering with each other instead,

That comment is another expression of the same bias.

So, Im asking myself: how is the bias to end? Can I do something myself? I’m also part of the same bias. What can I do?

One cannot recognize anything, if I’m part of the bias myself. The entity who’s ‘recognizing’ Is a part of the bias, not apart from it. 

One cannot do that. Anything else one can do?

1. computers will never solve chess.

2. It doesn't matter as it is very obvious that chess is a draw. 

Nope, if one is not different from the bias there is no ‘seeing the bias’. There is no one to see it, as the entirety of oneself is the bias itself. Therefore one cannot see it. What shall one do then?

 Not obvious enough to be 100% certain of it...

It took over eight thousand comments for someone to say it like it really is. Maybe I would say it differently, like children explaining it to adults, but still that's very succinct.

Yes, I am only 99.9999% sure that chess is a draw.

However most grandmasters are 100% sure chess is a draw.

Let's not start down the road of ridiculous unprovable claims again...you also might want to remember that at some point you said that you could be *more* sure than GMs because you had your "proof" to back you up.

The more you say, the more I think you are the least qualified person to comment on this.

It’s obvious that if one doesn’t exist independently of the bias he’s supposedly trying to recognize, it cannot. be done: oneself and the bias are indistinguishable. The logic is clear even for a five-yeR old.

 So what’s next?

  Then for you it’s not obvious, let alone ‘very obvious’. And don’t bring in the authority of others to prove your point. What most GMs believe is irrelevant to the fact of chess being a draw or not. Aside from that, their assessment is based on practical reasons, as it has been pointed out numerous times, but you seem to keep forgetting what was previously discussed, so you keep getting back to your’s and others’ beliefs  Which nobody cares about, except yourself.

 We’re not interested in your beliefs, Ponz.

 I can only see the bias if I’m separate from the bias. Apparently some can’t get this simple thing. This is a first. Usually one insists that they’re separate, despite what they intellectually preach, so deep inside they believe they are separate. But this one doesn’t even intellectually see that even if one is not separate from the bias, which they do not contest, they can still recognize the bias in themselves. Some simply lack elementary logic to see the impossibility if this scenario. So we will let them sort it out for themselves while we press on. 

 If one is not separate from the bias, which is universal, the bias cannot be detected. It’s just another trick of the bias. So what can be done?

Yes. It is only a matter of time.

I’m not sure if the above comment refers to bias, but it’s worth saying that buying more time is just another escape.

 That’s not true at all, you can certainly be cognitive of your own biases. I am of some of mine.  If I see a meme that claims something bad a certain orange politician did or said, my initial gut “feeling“ is that it is true. Which is why I am very cognitive of validating information if it’s something that confirms my own worldview. 

 This doesn’t mean you can’t have other biases that you were unaware of. 

 Well, that’s the wide-pread belief, that one is somewhat ‘neutral’, can be fair and see what’s going from an objective perspective. 

 The problem is that there is no such ‘neutral center’ which can be objective. Who decides whether or not something is right or wrong? That perceived center is just another image, the self-image. Images don’t have special privileges, their view is limited to a small number of images, which form the bias of the person. 

 The self-image judges according to the images attached to it. Those images are that very bias. But humans believe that self-image is not an image, but some objective entity, positioned in the center of consciousness, and so being able to judge objectively. Unfortunately, consciousness, this chaotic, disorderly conglomerate of images, has no center. That is one illusion which escapes perception, because most of us don’t look inwardly. And those  who try will discover that it is not possible, as long as that chaotic mass of images gives the brain no space for observation.

 So one of the questions one might ask is: ‘ Is my brain clear enough to observe?’     Start there.

You’re kind of in a roundabout, long-winded way of saying how can we know if we are not in the Matrix?  The only thing we can know for certain is that we exist, the adage “I think therefore I am.“

But in the context of normal practical applications, there are epistemological methods to determine which beliefs are justified and which are not. We cannot fully remove biases, misconceptions and the prospect of ever being wrong. We can certainly mitigate (but never fully remove) the imperfections within ourselves. 

Haha! That’s because you insist in Descartes’ s adagio...The reverse of his error is this: if you don’t think, do you exist?  As a psychological entity, not as a physical one. Because thinking forms that entity, it is its baby, which means it is imaginary, because thinking produces imagination, or an imaginary content.

I’m not going in a roundabout way, I was very precise in describing you the consciousness of most brains on Earth. But certain answers must be discovered by yourself, through insight, not handed over by another.

So if you look into Descartes musing a little deeper , you can easily see that just because one has the capacity  to think, it doesn’t mean that a thinker must exist. Thinking in itself doesn’t postulate a thinker, which is my earlier description of a center.

  But before you make any predictions about the impossibility of ending the psychological bias we are talking about, your brain must be quiet, as still as humanly possible. Until then, your vision is not clear and you are just speculating.

  So in order to stop such speculations, your next question ‘should’ be: ‘How does this stillness come about?’How does it happen? Otherwise it’s just the noisy brain escaping facts because it pursues a sense of psychological security and cannot really investigate past that security point.