Will stockfish be able to solve chess if we have the technology?

Chess isnt infinte however there are more possible games of chess than the atoms in the universe. 

But then another question comes up what is meant by solving chess?

@2

"what is meant by solving chess?"
++ Chess is the game as described by the Laws of Chess.
Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and
strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.
The game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally.
Optimal play is play without errors.
An error (?) is a move that changes the game state from draw to loss, or from win to draw.
A blunder or double error (??) is a move that changes a win to a loss.
A strategy can be a set of moves, or a set of rules, or a combination.
A diagram is the location of men on the board.
A position is a diagram plus side to move, castling rights, and en passant flag.
A node is a position plus history and evaluation.

@1

"There are more possible games of chess than the atoms in the universe."
++ There are between 10^29241 and 10^34082 possible games.
There are 10^44 legal positions.
Of these 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess.
With present technology 10^9 nodes/s that takes 5 years.

I see this helped thank you. Overall it is possible to solve chess "strongly" but I guess we should not be aiming for that because the raw beauty of the game having so many unknowns is what entices me to play chess and maybe many others and having everything solved/answered leaves no questions. No questions, no point of playing the game as the answer is already found 

@4

"it is possible to solve chess strongly"
++ In theory yes, but 10^44 legal positions would require too much time and storage.
Only weakly solving Chess is feasible, but would take 5 years and 3 million $.

@5

There will always be someone with enough time and money who will perhaps try solve chess completely

@6

So far nobody had 5 years and 3 million $ to weakly solve Chess.
Strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base would take longer than the age of the universe.

@7 

Oh. That is however with today's technology. You never know what new tech comes out in the next 50 years.

Maybe

@9 

Definetly in the future perhaps by the end of this century 

@8

Present technology can weakly solve Chess in 5 years for 3 million $.
Expect Chess weakly solved long before it can be strongly solved.
Checkers has been weakly solved, not strongly.

@13

See the definitions above @3.

If chess is ever solved by a computer, it would be done by a super-duper quantum computer which hasn't been built yet, and the computer would have a chess engine designed to run on a quantum computer.  Stockfish isn't that type of engine.

Indeed, PassiveAnt

Where does the 5 years 3 mill figure come from?

"There are more possible games of chess than the atoms in the universe."

I see this comment from time to time, but I don't understand its point.

Is the concern that a full chess solution would require so much data that we wouldn't be able to physically store it all?

Or that it would require too much time?

I think it's just a saying to emphasize the incomprehensibly huge number of possible games. Analyzing every possible game doesn't require storing every possible game.