Will computers ever solve chess?

Some humans have a quality of thinking the best chess engines do not have.

 However this human quality will only help in very rare circumstances.

Engines analize all positions from a single perspective, that of material advantage, Of course, a pawn will be assigned a value of a Queen if the potential exists. The fact remains, all engine analysis is given as a material Plus or Minus. A perfect example was seen in a recent analysis of a GM game giving one side a +9.00 advantage. Winning. The move suggested as best was played and it dropped to +4.00. Again, the suggested response was played and it dropped to +1.50 but still much better. A few moves later a draw was agreed. Humans knew this result all along, but Stockfish was "ignorant" of the position, having based it's evaluation on material +.

and what was the position? Maybe a blocked one? 

Do you have any results where stockfish missed a win which a human found?

Good point.  Computers are great at calculating, but they are lacking in some other areas of the game.  Therefore, a computer can't solve chess.  Maybe some kind of cyborg (human-computer hybrid) could though.  lol   Let's put a computer chip in Carlsen's brain and test that theory.    

And that is exactly what a lot of people who believe chess is solvable say. The term "computer" is probably also loosely meant to refer to what will replace computers. Just as the analogy of going to the moon. In 1783 no horse could gallop to the moon. So it was assumed no "vehicle" could ever do it. And of course, even someone straining their imagination could not conceive of how it could ever be done. But eventually a vehicle did do it, it was just a vehicle that replaced the horse. Given the similarities to tic tac toe and checkers, it's likely perfect chess is a tie. We just haven't yet imagined the machine or thing that will prove it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/computers-solve-checkers-its-a-draw/

No they don't....

Some assumptions you made:

- computers need to be able to take care of these aspects

- computers cannot make up for the aspects they lack using it's raw computational power
- computers cannot be improved upon

Chess will never be solved, but your reasoning is so flawed it hurts...

of course  computers can and do improve.

it is fairly obvious computers will never solve chess.

it is quite obvious chess is a draw.

Inevitably.

i didn't say it was inconceivable in 1783, I said it was inconceivable of HOW to do it. Of course we can imagine solving chess, but we have not yet conceived of HOW to do it. That doesn't mean the how is impossible for a future brilliant thinker. Just as the how of getting to the moon was impossible in 1783, imaginable in 1883, and already done by 1983.And not everyone thought the earth was flat, some knew it was not because it was logically not, and it was written that it was not. As for your suggestion to just "stop" wanting progress and seeking out new information and inventions, that's likely to not happen. We people seem to really like doing and discovering new things.

Eventually.

You are aware there is a theoretical limit (which means god herself couldn't brake it) to how much energy is required for the signal. This has been explained to you before and you should know this by know.

Also saying stuff like "I have mentioned before that I feel spherical architecture offers promise. But what might the circuitry look like?" Really doesn't do much unless you explain why you feel it offers promise (and not "wikipedia said so" otherwise we could just copy paste the whole discussion from there.

?

I prefer not to describe it.   It was just that disgusting.  I'm still having nightmares.   lol

But that's not what "solving chess" means...

And even this statement is incorrect. The question is: if both players play perfectly, what is the result? Win for white, win for black or draw?

There can be no position where EVERY move by a side worsens its true value. This value is defined as the value achieved by the BEST possible move, which is the value the opponent can reach by their BEST possible reply (recursively).

3D circuitry is a reality. But spherical circuitry combines the best possible distance metric with the worst possible design for getting rid of heat. And the latter is a problem even with flat CPUs (which have much larger surface area). Eg if a transistor has a scale of 1, a trillion transistors in a 2D array has an area of 2 trillion. The same number of transistors in a sphere has an area about 4000 times less, if my mental calculation is correct (certainly of that order). This would make it run way too hot without compensating enormously, or using an entirely different technology.

Well, it can't possibly be a win for black, if both sides play perfectly.  Based on the average of all GM games, I'm leaning heavily towards draw.