Chess will never be solved, here's why

Members could take turns helping Ty.
This is strictly a side-note - but in some debating societies - the two sides are required to switch positions - and then have the debate again.
People often use the term 'debate' in chess.com discussions.
But that's generous.
Its very rarely 'true' debate.
Is there such a thing?  Definitely.  But again - that's on a scale. 
Its not digital A or B.

#2819
"But 'good assistants' stepping in - isn't good enough. 
They'd maybe be 'stepping in' for a Trillion Gadzillion Centuries !"
++ No, the whole effort takes 5 years, as GM Sveshnikov said.
The 'good assistants' step in when a known draw with > 7 men is reached
so as to avoid unnecessary computations and save time.

"It looks like an admission that the computers just aren't up to the task."
++ No, existing cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s are up to the task.
It does not matter that they badly handle positions that do not arise.
It does not matter that they do not recognise some draws:
the 'good assistants' will do and halt the calculation adjudicating a draw to save time.

"But those Glaring Weaknesses of the computers were with Stockfish Engines"
++ No, the aim is to use existing software on existing but top hardware
a.k.a. 'modern computers'.

"It does not matter that they do not recognise some draws:"
that's like saying that the speed of the computers 'doesn't matter'.
Maybe water isn't wet either?   

#2822

"It does not matter that they do not recognise some draws:"
++ The engine would eventually reach a draw as well by either 3-fold repetition or hitting the 7-men endgame table base, but that would all be unnecessary and wasted engine time.
The 'good assistants' help prune the search tree, to make weakly solving chess feasible for the 'modern computers'.

Here is an example of an ICCF WC draw. It is 99% sure to be an ideal game with optimal moves. In the final position the human players agreed on a draw, as neither side has any chance to win. They could go on for some months, but there would be no point in doing so.

"that's like saying that the speed of the computers 'doesn't matter'."
++ Of course the speed of computers matters, but it is the nodes/s that matter, not the FLOPS, as solving chess requires not one single floating point operation.

proof?

@Optimissed

The point is @tygxc's seven maids will be venturing such opinions some billions of times and @tygxc then thinks he has a proof based on those opinions. It's not a proof unless each opinion is proved. So the first thing is to see how that would play out in the example he gives.

If your goal is explore a territory, and part of that territory lies across a deep river, then it stands to reason that a car is the wrong tool for the job.

Its not even a 'deep river'.
Perhaps every single person posting in or reading this thread can or does 
understand very well that the two draws that the engines misinterpret as wins are in fact easy draws.  Obvious draws.
Its not a 'deep river'.  So @tygxc 's argument fails.

But we also got from @tygxc :
"++ Of course the speed of computers matters, but it is the nodes/s that matter, not the FLOPS, as solving chess requires not one single floating point operation."
The tactic that he seems to be using - is to hide behind Semantics.
By using 'nodes' he hopes to obscure the issue of the computers' speed being trillions of times too slow to 'solve chess' in 1000 years ! 
Further obscuring is done by him using the word 'consider' - but that's another concession he made. 
The computers 'consider' ...
Unless he can properly articulate in a properly mathematical but brief way what he thinks 'consider' by the computer means to any chess position then the constant repetition of '10∧9 nodes computer' proves Nothing.
Its not a 'proof' if he can't articulate it properly.
And at each stage.  

Nor does anybody have to 'ask for proof'.
His points are being refuted over and over again.
But - he can deny that.  Its going to continue.
Semantics - versus math.  Objectively - math should win. 
Always does - in a way. 
But subjectively - math often 'loses'.  As does other logic.  It 'loses'.
Especially in contesting 'solipsism'.  A policy by which nothing can be proven to a person.  Or particular things.
People will choose to believe things.  Especially 'solipsists'.  

#2825
"Only Black has chances to win with some (much?) help from white."
++ Pawns are equal and symmetrical. There are no weaknesses.
If the minor pieces are traded, then a KRPPPP vs. KRPPPP endgame results. Even KRPPPP vs. KRPPP on 1 wing is known to be a draw, as at most it leads to a table base drawn KRPP vs. KRP.
If the rooks are traded, then a KBPPPP vs. KNPPPP endgame results.
As the pawns are on 1 wing, the domination of the B over the N plays no role.
Over the board white may miss some knight fork especially if tired and low on time. 
This is correspondence 5 days/move, the players are ICCF grandmasters and they use multicore engines. They do not get tired, they do not run out of time.

Apparently at least one of both must have thought there was a slight chance of winning before the rook trade on move 28.
After move 29 they both agreed that there was no point in continuing. A draw it is.

#2827
"So the first thing is to see how that would play out in the example he gives."
++ You can see for yourself if you do not believe. Run the position on your desktop for 17000 s/move = 4.7 h/move. There is no doubt at all what you will find: a draw.

#2828
"If your goal is explore a territory, and part of that territory lies across a deep river, then it stands to reason that a car is the wrong tool for the job."

++ That is the whole point: we know in advance that along the safe path of drawn positions between the drawn 32-men initial position and the 7-men endgame table base draw there lie no positions with multiple light square bishops.
All positions with multiple light square bishops can be dismissed outright as pitfalls.

That is also why the Gourion number 10^37 is closer to the number of legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions than the Tromp number of 10^44 legal positions, as all 55958 positions Tromp found legal in his sample of a million contain multiple underpromotions to pieces not previously captured.

"The number of promotions (to pieces not previously captured) is much more evenly distributed, with 4 through 12 promotions (to pieces not previously captured) accounting for 0.3%, 1.1%, 3.4%, 8.3%, 15.2%, 21.5%, 22.7%, 17.1%, 8.3%, and 2% of random urpositions." - Tromp

?

#2834
Yes, a knight is stronger than a bad bishop on the color of its pawns.
However in the position under discussion only 1 white pawn is on the color of its bishop and it is not even fixed. Moreover, ICCF grandmasters at 5 days/move and using multicore engines do not make such tactical errors: they neither tire, nor run out of time.
There can be no doubt that the position where they agreed on the draw would end otherwise than a draw after more months of play. That position is a draw, as they rightly both agreed.

Regarding this thing about chess super-engines unable to see that multiple positions are easily drawn that a D-rated player could easily see are draws  ...  I think that needs to be posted about elsewhere on the website.  In various places.
It is a subject in itself.

Its not all opinion.
Several posters gave details.
And the claimer doesn't have burden of proof?
A claim can be refuted without proof.
Things aren't always digital A or B.
But one might get quite attached to thinking or insisting they are.
And also - might forget that everyone decides for himself/herself.

One thing I am sure about that chess can’t be solved in a human mind, Which means no human can handle every position’s response.

Correct.
Including that no human would have time !
Even if every human was working on it. 
There aren't enough seconds in a year !

#2842

"it is highly likely that there are positions with multiple light squared bishops that are reached by 100% optimal play."

++ That is nonsense. Optimal play is to promote to a queen, not to a second same color bishop. There are very rare exceptions where promotion to a bishop is necessary to avoid stalemate. Some sick artificial constructions prove nothing. The sick artificial constructions cannot be reached from the initial positions by optimal play themselves. In none of the ICCF WC draws occurs a single underpromotion. 99% of these ICCF WC draws are ideal games with optimal moves.

Kind of a strawman there.
Attacking a weak idea to feel vindicated.  Or bait and switch.
Because how likely the position is to come up in a game isn't the point.
The point is the supercomputers can't handle it.
D-rated players can.  And they're not going to solve chess.
Definite fact.  The computers can't handle it.
Astutely and rightly brought out by @MARattigan and by @Elroch
Along with other points and facts.  Like Flops per second.
Not irrelevant.