Chess will never be solved, here's why

Well this is what it gave me after about ten minutes for the position I was referring to (-27.6<-9.19).

Yeah, I have used an even simpler 9 bishops of the same colour position to give a similar evaluation. Bottom line: Stockfish sees some dead drawn positions (even ones that are unlosable, like the 9 bishops ones) as massive material advantage.

IMO, chess is an logical art form. However. The objective has always been to win. So if you create a machine that will always win or, if against itself, always draws. Then yes. Chess is solved.

It's called minimax pathology.

That doesn't happen on a cloud cuckoo computer.

Amazingly, with a lot of time the analysis tool can think your position is a forced mate!!

On my computer I got the same result as @Elroch on that draw position, but I used SF12. Crystal is a derivative especially suited for dealing with fortresses, but it seems less selective, so I don't think it's stronger than SF, overall. @MARattigan got 0.00 with SF14 at depth 37, so I cannot understand why on chess.com SF14 at depth 99 with nnue enabled fails in that position.

I see - it is likely the "custom anti-fortress code" which is providing the better evaluation. This obviously matters a lot here.

@haiaku re  this.

Could be I'm using a different NNUE level.

You are assuming an evaluation can't change radically with depth: it can! Also it can vary between analyses due to randomness in branch selection.

I ran SF12 several times at 90+ depth with nnue enabled, but never got more than -8 for White, SF14 is more advanced, though, and I see now that you didn't reach depth 99 with the nnue enabled. The path followed to reach a position can affect the evaluation, if intermediate results are stored in a TT; that should explain the result on chess.com @MARattigan got here.

@pfren I don't think Crystal actually uses an "anti-fortress" code, rather a fortress detection code and a less selective search, but clearly they have an "anti-fortress" effect during play.

@MARattigan that link on your previous post does not work for me.

I think @tygxc possibly has the answer. 

It's not a KRPP vs. KRP position, so the evaluation is irrelevant.

meant to link to #2802 - just scroll up.

No, it's not.  By definition.  Engines are bound by their limitations just like human beings.  To solve chess, you need a proof...i.e. tablebases working backwards to the starting position, or some other method that is at this point completely imaginary, like saying "someday some technology will allow human beings will travel faster than light".

The saying goes that if you observe any sufficiently advanced technology from a threshold too far removed to understand it, then it is indistinguishable from magic.  By the same token, conjecture about solving chess without using the only known and reliable method available is a belief in magic, engaged in by those who not only do not understand the problem, but do not even understand that they don't understand the problem ...

And now we have a new term:
"anti-fortress code"
And I am certain that most members don't know about the colossal weakness/flaw in Stockfish assigning winning advantage to easily drawn positions.
And - regarding this new conversation about the imperfection of computer engines - I'm noticing that @tygxc is staying out of this one for now.

#2831
"I'm noticing that @tygxc is staying out of this one for now."
++ A position with 6 black light square bishops can never arise from the initial position by a game with > 50% accuracy and thus is irrelevant for solving chess.
Chess engines are quite good at normal positions of 26 to 8 men, not for this kind of weirdness.
Here is an example of a real game:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033779 

As soon as the endgame KRPP vs. KRP arises after 55...gxh5 both the human and the engine play perfectly according to the 7-men endgame table base.

With the time per 4 white nodes to the solution tree revised to 17 s on the 10^9 nodes/s cloud engines, it is possible to emulate this as 4.7 hours on a desktop with 10^6 nodes/s.

'Flushed' out !!
So the claim is its 'okay' that the engines got those positions stark staringly wrong because they wouldn't normally arise.
That's not much of a defense.
The engines can't get it right where humans at most levels of chess can see very quickly that they're draws.

Curiosity:  How Stockfish would react or perform if some of the extra bishops were removed from the board !

I believe you are quoting Pope Gregory the 8th on that point?

#2815
"its 'okay' that the engines got those positions stark staringly wrong because they wouldn't normally arise."
++ Yes, that is right. If you buy a car you cannot expect to drive it through a river.
The chess engine is designed to handle normal positions of 26 - 8 men efficiently.

"The engines can't get it right where humans at most levels of chess can see very quickly that they're draws."
++ Yes, that is right. That is why the good assistants must step in and end calculations when a known drawn endgame is reached, like with opposite colored bishops, or a rook ending with pawns on one wing, or a fortress.

"Yes, that is right. That is why the good assistants must step in and end calculations when a known drawn endgame is reached, like with opposite colored bishops, or a rook ending with pawns on one wing, or a fortress."
Big Concession there.
But 'good assistants' stepping in - isn't good enough. 
Not nearly good enough.
They'd maybe be 'stepping in' for a Trillion Gadzillion Centuries !

It looks like an admission that the computers just aren't up to the task.
Should I try Devil's Advocacy for a second ?
If I had been @tygxc there and I wanted to fight for the positions he fights for - 
then I would have asserted "But those Glaring Weaknesses of the computers were with Stockfish Engines - not the Research computers and software and engines !!"
He failed to do that.
Should he get coaching for his side ?