Will computers ever solve chess?

My girlfriend has an Ipad and she is very happy with it.

This is very anthropocentric, when IBM's Watson won Jeopardy!  Even if it does not have self awareness, it surely has a great deal of functional knowledge.

Your intuition is "humans understand, a computer is not human because it works in a different way, therefore a computer does not understand".

The truth in it is that a computer program typical lacks layers of functionality we have. It has no layer of self awareness. It has no levels for analysing its own function. However such things are possible.

Deep learning can lead to deep abstraction: nodes that correspond to subtle notions far removed from the inputs. This is much how human brains work.

There are subjective issues that can never be answered with certainty. All the rest end up outside of philosophy.

Yeah, isn't the argument for the possiblity of computer consciousness called "The Chinese Room Experiment?"

As for chess, consciousness isn't necessarily a requirement. Robots could make "perfect games" with clock-work precision (even making "creative" moves), but they could never gain "human" self-awareness. At least, in my opinion. It's a question of semantics vs syntax.

  The idea is already an opinion, an opinion about a fact, in relation to a fact.

  The self...

  Haha, it's easier take one's mind off things, it seems. And pour our energy in things that matter less.

About once a week, someone posts something interesting and germane to this thread.

The topic interests me enough to keep checking back, otherwise I would have untracked long ago.

I'm ever the optimist.

Tough question! Good question for a competition (see who can find the best).

Things that increase possible moves:

Switch the queen and closest knight.

Put the queen on the 3rd rank.

Switch the black and white rooks.

Switch the black bishops and white bishops.

etc.

Basically the test for any position is whether or not you can change anything that increases the number of moves.

Still thinking inside the box (108 moves), I see ;)...for someone that claims to be all about ideas yours seem kind of threadbare.  You'll also have to define "legal" better ;)...if you are already allowing for "new" starting positions, then putting pawns on the 1st rank would not be illegal?  

I'm sure someone can easily beat these 2 below but they are all I have time for today.  Keys to better positions:

- Finding a way to preserve several pawn moves of 1 and 2 squares but still allowing for long files and diagonals for other pieces

- Opposing rooks, bishops and queens far apart on files and diagonals allows for lots of extra moves since they effectively double up on squares

- Starting in enemy territory is advantageous for extra moves (captures), especially advantageous for short range knights

120 moves:

 128 moves:

You need to accurately define your problem then.  If you are looking for and already allowing for new starting positions, there is no rule in chess that says that pawns must start adjacent all in one rank, 8 columns ;).

You would also need to define considerations like keeping each colors' pieces to their own side of the board...this is why you're not necessarily the best candidate for solving chess.  Too imprecise.

60 moves each side...there could be more moves by putting pieces inside the other's camp for extra captures.

Not bad btickler.  I sure like your stile.  So I understand better.   If I move the White pawn from f2 to f1, does this increase the total moves ?  I count by 3 more.

That is an excellent idea. However it could (probably would in many cases) find local maxima. Starting with different tries would help find the best.

If you're looking for a position with the most possible legal moves, then you are only looking for one side. In chess, only one side gets to move at a time.

In other words, positions with the most possible legal moves will be open positions where Black has few pawns to get in the way of White's open lines.

Removing possibilities from the initial position diminishes the strategic possibilities, the tactical possibilities, and the creative options of the players.

In short, it makes for a decidedly worse game overall.

True, mostly I found any guess where improvements can be found in 5 seconds odd... and I'm not even good at these things like Remellion!

The main reason for simplifying the rules would be to make the game easier for lazy programmers.

However, Kramnik once said that eliminating en passant would make a number of openings obsolete. If the goal were to get people (not computers) to play with less reliance on theory, that might be an interesting alternative.

But again, Kramnik wasn't talking about computers or how easy it is to program moves.