Will computers ever solve chess?

But it was filled to the brim with the most vapid and mentally deficient posts you've ever seen.

When 99 out of 100 posts are 1 word long, or are just "hi people" then it doesn't really count now does it.

Exactly why lines have been shown to be flawed. Certain lines (old and worthless ones) are just losing. Finding every silly combination of HOW these lines lead to every conceivable checkmate is irrelevant. Only that they lose. 

This discussion is still going on? lol geezzus

@s23bog at least try to make sense lol

A perfect match that I analyzed on two programs

What do you mean by perfect? Do you mean you really like it, or do you mean that there is no possible way for improvement for any of the moves? Because if it's the latter, then chess is solved, which I'm surprised would be revealed here rather than a major news outlet.

Well maybe for ECO: B23 line. I don't know if you follow the computer tournament going on right now. But analyzing this match in had zero inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders on both side of the board. Also the average centipawn loss on both sides was a 3. the lower the number the better. 

This site gave White 98 excellent moves and 3 good moves out of 101 and Black 96 excellent moves and 4 good moves out of 100. White best move 93.9% and Black 88.9% maybe 100% would be awesome. Avg. Diff 0.01 White to 0.02 Black. Also zero forced moves.

It you could get the two best computers to play all the openings on both sides of the board to all zeros in inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders and centipawn loss at a 3 or lower then I would assume you have solved chess. But some day reanalyzing this match with a computer program of a rating of 5,000 or even 10,000 some day I bet that there would be inaccuracies, maybe even a mistake or two and possibly even a blunder and centipawn loss might even be a 4 or higher.

You may be right? But there has to be just one great game. There are so many lines. If there was a perfect match people would only play that one line if they knew about it.

There are hundreds or thousands of opening lines now where the best chess engines come out with an evaluation of 0.00 or exactally an equal game. 

It is quite obvious to the best players that chess is a draw.

I once had it on excel spreadsheet (got deleted) there is about 4,000 named openings.

As far as you dont know, chess is a draw. That's true. But as was just pointed out, perfect probably doesn't mean no mistakes, it means no mistakes found. 200, or even 50, years from now our "no mistakes" could easily be riddled with mistakes. The tournament, and game, SantaCruz just mentioned is obviously far, far from perfect. 

With regard to the current Chess.com Computer Chess Championship (CCCC) tournament, use of opening books is given as follows:

Stage 1 - Opening book: No opening book
Stage 2 - Opening book: 4 ply book
Stage 3 - 100 hand-selected opening positions

Actually chess is a draw and it does not matter much if I know this or not?

By definition perfect chess means a game played where neither side makes a move which would change the theoretical result of that game. It does not matter if anyone knows if such a mistake is made or not made?  

If computers solve chess it wouldn't matter as we are way behind engines. With computers solving chess we mean the perfect game, not a way to always win or lose in any position.

 If a mistake is being discovered in the future, the theoretical result of the game changes accordingly.

  Chess engines’ horizon is limited, therefore their evaluation doesn’t matter when it comes to perfect chess.

In my opinion it wouldn't change a thing in OTB play. Consider e.g. "Smerdon's Scandindavian" where there is a line called "The correspondence refutation" meaning that you shouldn't use the specific line in computer based correspondence games. However, OTB it is still playable because White makes too many pawn moves and might get stuck in a long row of only moves for each variation. Same for the Seirawan line in the Austrian Attack of the Pirc Defence. Either Black or White need to deviate from the draw line if they want to win with a slightly worse move. Still there is enough play for both of them. Most likely there are a lot more examples but I think you get the point. There is enough room for fun even if the game would be solved.

I've never heard that definition of perfect chess before. I think that's your definition. My definition of perfect comes from the dictionary, which is beyond improvement, flawless. And since new mistakes are always being found, it's pretty silly to say what perfection is at this point. It will change in a few years. I think what you meant to say is that as far as you dont know, chess is a draw (right now) when neither side makes what we currently understand as mistakes.

Ponz has no interest in actual facts or definitions ...

My definition of a perfect game has been given many times in this forum.

I meant to say exactly what I said.

A perfect game can be played even if the 2 players are novices.

Ad Hominem attacks do not change what is a perfect game.