Chess will never be solved, here's why

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 ...

Was just imitating the drivel you habitually write.

But mine was more fun.

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 ?  

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?

Objectively it is equal, but in a regular OTB game I would gladly accept a draw as white, and keeep on playing as Black.

In short: Only Black has chances to win with some (much?) help from white.

You should recognise that there's no such thing as proof in this context, because proof would depend on "chess being solved", whereas this entire subject is about whether chess can be solved. So asking for proof is like jumping to the end of something that hasn't been started. There is only opinion. If you ask for proof of that, I would tell you that the very fact you ask for proof tends to prove it. Otherwise, you would need to prove that we need proof in the form you prefer.

@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.