Will computers ever solve chess?

not so, but as you said, it's difficult for a finite mind to grasp the infinite.

Chex.. you missed the point entirely. What is difficult to grasp is the finite, that what we observe is a finite universe and everything in it. 

Infinity is an abstraction which can not be applied to the real world.

What we see in front of our eyes is finite. We do not observe anything infinite. Observation of an infinite universe is not possible, if one thing were to be infinite, than everything must be so.

Either everything is infinite or everything is finite. Can't be some things are, some not. I choose to accept everything is finite, as to choosing the opposite. If everything were infinite, the laws of nature would not exist.

life is just too tough for you poundball.

I have seen your insults, trolling in other threads. Stick to them chex as your wasting your time here.

really ? my trolling ? you BS me and say I'm trolling you! cheeky little pup. will stay clear of your posts then in case you might start crying again.

Because you're in Chile?

Read the thread.  The definition and its source are probably posted a few dozen times.

Let me know if this helps define solving chess.

1) Is there any way that White can make a sequence of moves that guarantees a win? If yes, chess is solved.

2) Is there any way that Black can make a sequence of moves that guarantees a win? If yes, chess is solved.

3) If there is no way that either side can guarantee a win, and if EVERY game has been investigated, then chess is a draw. chess is solved.

If (1), (2), and (3) are unanswered, then chess is not solved.

As an example, the game diagram below shows a forced win for White. If this can be created for at least one complete game, then chess is solved.

Probably somewhere there somewhere.

In chess, each player usually has more than two choices for each move, so one section of the game tree might actually look like this:

Infinite chess is more complicated and infinite chess with huygens (they jump prime numbers of squares) is yet more complicated.

The definition is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

That's mostly true. But if you check all black responses, and none can avoid a loss, then you never need to check 1.a3, 1.b3, 1.c3, 1.d3,...,1.a4, 1.b4, 1.c4, 1.d4, 1.f4, ... and so forth. Each one of these can lead to a massive section of the game tree but there is no reason to investigate those, because 1.e4 led to a forced win. In this same way other major branches of the game tree can be "lopped" off during the analysis.

That's another good point. If a programmer can define a method to put every chess game in a sequence (game 1, game 2, game 3, etc.) then there is no reason to store chess games that have already been analyzed. If games 1-10,000 are not a forced win for white, then you just store "n = 10,000". You don't need to store the actual games in memory. Saves a lot of computer memory.

Under the rules of Chess there are a finite number of possible games (admittedly it is a BIG finite number), therefore if there were a computer with sufficient power and memory to play and store all of them the answer would be known...

Can we prove definitively that chess is a win or draw with best play?

There's an algorithm to answer the question, but it would take a long time to run. As far as I know, no one has tried to start such an effort yet.

There are more than 1,000,000 people who have joined a distributed computing project to look for new prime numbers (GIMPS project = The Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search).

There's also more than 5,000,000 people who have joined computers to look for extra-terrestrial life (SETI@home = Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence).

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar group is eventually formed to try to solve chess.

Good luck with your next account after this one is banned.

How about a different standard for deciding if computers have 'solved' the chess or not: computer playing black should always be able to draw(if not win) regardless of what white plays. I think that would also mean that computers have 'solved' chess.

I am just guessing but I think it would be easier for black to draw than white to win in computer vs computer play.

Just about every serious chess player seeks to find a win for white, and seek to find ways to equalize as Black.

The strongest engines are closing in on demonstrating that chess is practically drawn. I believe that within the next 20-30 years, engines will be unbeatable, even against the strongest engines.