Will computers ever solve chess?

en passant is a very important rule.

The pawn that heroically marched in the heart of the enemy's position must be rewarded positionally.

  En passant has its own solid logic. If one wants to abolish it, they must also forbid pawns from moving up two squares: the two are connected. To abolish just one of them is a one-sided affair that disrupts the balance.

  Conversely, if the pawns could only move one square no matter where they are, then the en passant rule would become obsolete.

 Now, to abolish both rules--in order to be fair--would take a lot of possibilities from the game of chess.

  As for castling, it's rather obvious: with a king stuck in the center, it would be a lot easier and the games would end more quickly.

  Is this what we want? Easier and easier, not just in chess, but in every field of life? And the easier it gets, the lazier we become.

...all that would prove is that your newly created chess variant is a forced win or not a forced win.

In above, Queens on color, knights on b and g, bishops on c and f may make for a variant.

Wasn't looking for a "solution". The position could be a variant like losers, monster, bughouse.

The bigger question is will chess ever solve computers?

  The computers are us. And the game of chess will never put our life in order.

This question might sound odd, but with all this talk of coumputer programs: in which language would one code a chess engine?

If I wanted to make a very simple one (e.g. it just moves the pieces randomly) would that be hard?

Why are you worried about the representation? Working with very limited memory? A simple representation of a board would be 128 bytes. Speed of data processing is usually going to matter more.

Would seem more appropriate to use java if you are not going to use assembly code to squeeze speed out of your CPU. It would allow speed and good software design.

Or if you want it quick and simple, why not python?

That is what every engine does since anyone first thought of an engine...

Until you are working with millions of positions, why bother about compact representation? My representation of the board would be 64 x (2 bytes). Up to you where you store e.p., castling rights, etc.

if you wanted super-compact positions, you could use FEN and then compress them. But that's not how you want them for calculations!

A first chance to use a bit of smarts is in working out how to determine legal moves. You can precalculate a lot. Eg every square, every piece type has a data structure giving chains of squares to move to until one is blocked. Or you can just write logic for working out legal moves for each piece from the geometry, doing stuff like checking if you have reached the edge! A bit slower that way.

When I delved into this, I remember puzzling whether it was best to keep sets of legal moves and modify them after each move to try to save time, or calculate them from scratch. Your call!

  The truth is that the judge is part of the same criminal system: they only like to play god with others.

  Sorry: please, go on.

Computers might be able to do chess.

With all the bad that happens in the world, particularly to decent people, it's hard to understand why anyone would believe in karma... well unless you're a Buddhist that believes in rebirth, and that misfortune now is balancing something you did in a previous life.

s23bog, has your blog where you post the 0s and 1s received so little attention that you want to start posting that here again? 

Why not join a computer chess group and learn how others have made their own chess engines. 

57 pages deep, and did we ever decide whether computers will ever solve chess? I forget...

chess will never be solved for commercial reason even if people overcome technological barriers.