Chess will never be solved, here's why

Imagine a chess position of X paradigms. 

Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good. 

Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka? 

No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could. 

the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc. 

nothing in the world can change that. 

So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca. 

If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite. 

So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago. 

If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved. 

Chess can’t be solved because there is no question to answer

EDIT-4K 

i am reporting you

good job @Bertholdt_Colossal_Titan

nice explanation👍👍👍👍

So you not only copied the subject, but you also copied the comment made by the original poster (which was already dumb rambling to begin with). What's the point of this post? reported as spam lol

Spamming is the point.

Until the moderators decide to do something about spammers, it's very safe to spam nonsense.

Its not allowed to copy an opening post to start another forum?
If that's the case - the new opening poster in his new forum should make some slight edits to his topic and opening post so that that claim can't be made.
But there's also the idea of starting over completely.
Because once you've posted the opening post - the link at the top can't be changed.
I just compared the links. They seem identical.
So - suggestion:
start over with a new forum: change the wording in the topic and the opening post somewhat - so it has the same meaning but isn't a copy.

You come here one month later, and resurrect a dead troll topic just to make this brilliant suggestion? Really?

This forum came up on the forum page
And I asked a question about rules.
You don't like the suggestion?
If you don't want the forum active then you could try to get it locked.
--------------------
Regarding the actual subject - just the data storage problems alone would make any thorough computer-crunched solution of chess impossible.
Whether you go from the front - 'wide game tree search' would collide with the gigantic 'Shannon number' of over 10^120 possible games (a lower bound estimate)
and if you could somehow store a whole game in an atom - the entire observable universe wouldn't have enough atoms to do so.
So you know that's out!
-----------------
If you go from the back (its being done for several years now) with endgame tablebase projects - it took years just to solve for 7 pieces and now its struggling for years with 8 pieces on board.
But as you add pieces the complexity increases tremendously - and the project is colliding with the gigantic number formulated by John Tromp of 4.8 x 10^44 possible legal chess positions. (an upper bound that reduces an earlier upper bound of 13^64) -
which although smaller than the Shannon numer would still mean that to store all the possible positions with about a million atoms per position - you'd need all of planet earth to store it.
So you know that ain't happening either.
--------------------------
There's also the fact that such projects would take many trillions of years.
Sooooo - you need 'alternative solving'
Schaeffer did an 'alternative solution' for solving checkers.
But for chess - something much more drastic than Schaeffer's method would be needed.