Will computers ever solve chess?

Disagree totally with this. I think there have been thousands of games where neither side made  bad move which would change the result of the game from a draw to a win [for either side]

And this has never happened in a thousand years and never will happen.

You've been smoking way too much of that stuff you're so fond of.

That statement is complete nonsense. Read it. Did you stop to think? 

By your admission bog, mistakes are a judgement call and not perfect. Yet, in the same breath you claim no game has ever been played without a mistake.

Can you see the contradiction here? 

The evidence is overwhelming that chess is a draw with best play for both sides.

Agreed. If the question where posed in one of Elroch's threads, it would be viewed as a "scientific theory beyond any doubt". The game is a draw. There is no basis in any research to make any claim otherwise.

It looks as if my conjecture that White is in Zugswang at the start is not going to get many supporters, at least on chess.com, therefore.

I will have to add it to my list of dud hypotheses.

 ...the answer my friend is blowin' in the wind...

You seem to assume the game of chess is a win for White. The overwhelming evidence is that this assumption is not true.

And the overwhelming evidence IS NOT "It looks like a draw, so it must be a draw." 

It depends on how you define "mistake".   Are you talking about an outright blunder or the 2nd best candidate move, when you say "mistake"?   Some of Bobby Fischer's games were perfect (no mistakes at all).  I saw one of his games where he created a win out of nowhere, by sac'ing material (2 or 3 pieces) and attacking the opponent's king.   Nobody alive at the time could believe it, because it was virtually impossible to see 20 moves ahead to the checkmate.   Yet, Bobby either saw that far ahead or his instincts were so good that he was willing to go for it.   A computer would have to calculate up to 15-20 ply to be able to match that performance.   Also to note, if he had decided on a safer plan and had still won the game, does that mean that he would have made a "mistake" by not going for the more aggressive, sac'ing plan?   It's a conundrum.   A win is a win and there is often more than one path to victory.   It depends what kind of mood we're in at the time.   Computers don't have moods though.   They can't choose whether to be very aggressive and sac-happy or play it safe and win in the endgame.   

Incorrect.   There needs to be several ways.  One for each book opening.   If the computer plays 1. e4, the other computer can respond with 1. e5, 1, c5, 1. e6, 1. c6, 1. d6, 1, g6, 1. b6, 1. Nf6 or 1. d5.   So, there are 9 forced wins needed, right there.   

Stockfish scores 1. e4 and 1. d4 exactly equally.  So, you already need a forced win for white, using all possible sound replies to those two moves.   At least 15 forced wins. 

sometimes the topic is so stupid.

of course computers will be the chess champions inasmuch as chess is a game of geometry and memory,

but as long as chess is a also a game of tension, of personality, of ambition...human...the computer may win computer to computer or computer against human but the pride and applause and honor will only be to human to human.

thus the question is ugly.

the question is to speak against the sense of humanity.

there will also be a better machine.

i grew up poor...thus for me toast was bread in the oven..burnt or unevenly baked.

yet the toaster.

better toast.

this is truly a stupid topic.

fear...ambition...money...etc.

it is said there is a sixtyp-fifth square on the chessboard.

the computer does not see the sixty-fifth square.

this is why the question is stupid.

machine against machine ?  who would care.  MAYTAG WASHING MACHINE COMPANY !

human against human is the sixty-fifth sqhare.

example of the tension between two great players.  one has a son in rehab that needs 10k a month ( a secret not kinown to the chess communiy ) and the other has married a 20 year old who wants "the life in monaco".  the price money would solve both issues.  

do you think a computer could compute this tension ?

stupid post.

irrelvelant post.

Somebody forgot to exhale.   lol

child.

you are a boy,

i am a man.     i h

As of 2000-2005, you and every other human chessplayer have not been capable of determining what is really a positional mistake or not in chess.  Clear inaccuracies and blunders, yes.  Positional mistakes relative to engine play?  No.  Sorry, but that's the reality.

So, your whole premise is flawed.  You can argue that draws are more likely because black can hold a game all the way to a piece down and still draw in the right circumstances, but you can't argue about mistakes being made, because you aren't qualified to call an engine move a mistake or not except in some very rare cases where the engine's horizon comes into play, like Bxh7 sacrifices, etc.

I once played at above the 2600 level and am pretty qualified to look at most games and show/find the mistakes.

Regarding moves of very strong engines--they rarely make mistakes.

However i have found mistakes that the very strongest chess engines made--sequences of moves which the chess engines did not figure out.

Yes, some humans can play positionally very well.

My premise was not about how well or poorly i play--it was the fact that for a 1000 years nobody has found a win for White [or Black] from the starting position and that is an indication [not 100% proof] that the game of chess is a draw. There is a lot of other evidence that the game of chess is a draw with optimum play.

since i am not a submariner and have only three small event times in prison i canoit say.

Another strong indication that the "solution to chess" is a draw is the results of the Computer World Chess Championships.   These computers are all rated over 3000 and about 80% of the games were draws.