Chess will never be solved, here's why

yes the evil on chess.com must be stopped at all costs!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-eating-disorders/202110/why-do-we-judge-other-people

#3464
"Chess can in practice be solved and will be solved" ++ Yes.

"we'll develop an AI which always plays the optimum moves long before we can prove that they are the optimum moves."
++ Stockfish makes 1 error in 10^5 positions running 17 s/move on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine. Considering its top 4 moves reduces that error rate to 1 error in 10^20 positions, below 1 error over the collapsed space of 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions.

"collapse the verification space" ++ The verification space of 10^44 legal positions is too large to strongly solve chess to a 32-men table base. It would require 10^44 ns on 1 cloud engine of 10^9 nodes/s and it would at least require 10^44 bit of storage: draw / no draw. So collapsing the verification space to 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions is necessary and leads to a weak solution of chess, as done for Checkers 10^14 and Losing Chess 10^9.

"Perhaps simultaneously, we'll develop a third level of AI which can "explain" the solution to us by converting it to a set of elegant rules, which a human can understand."
++ Allen solved Connect Four by brute force calculation, and Allis by a set of 9 rules. 
There are rules for chess: play the center, castle, hang no pieces or pawns...

After the persistent spam about nodes and square root -
I took the position that somebody would have to pay me a lot of money to even read 5% of those posts premised on such nonsense.
But I still often read some of the posts Refuting it and its many offshoots !
Usually such refuting posts skip the nodes/square root invalidities though.

Its definitely like the 'stroking' I've seen of conspiracy theorists in forums in discussion clubs.
Some members simply agree to talk with the flat earther or other theorists giving them exactly what they want which is to provide thorough refutations so that the pseudoscience theorist can continue to Reject same at enormous length and enormous repetition. 
Sometimes with some variations in the silly tactics.

Paradoxical how it works.
Refuters:  'We have him.  His stuff is 100% invalid.  Easy to refute."
Pseudoscience pusher:  'No !   I have You !  You invested time.  You paid attention.  You agreed to commit your time.  It is I who Owns You now !"

Based on nothing of any relevance.

Stockfish doesn't come close to being that accurate in tablebase positions (one of the few genuinely reliable tests we have of engine accuracy). The idea that the best opponent possible would win a fraction of 1% of games against Stockfish seems comical.

There's a demonstration of Elroch efficiency.
I don't need to read tygxc's posts.
The quote quickly isolated nonsense and false premise.

Rules that ensure blunders in large numbers of crucial decisions:

1. Where the only good moves are not central
2. Where the only good moves avoid castling
3. Where the only good move is to sacrifice (most chessplayers are aware these exist).

Lol.  You're not going to become a mod if they see this threat .

lol, you really have no idea do you...

I liked the typo too ...
instead of thread (forum) it was threat.

After another 2000 posts in the two forums it seems evident that the nodes/square root guy will still be spamming the same huge posts probably done by voice texting - that most people here would probably require at least $100 an hour to read through.
Its flat earth stuff about computer projects in chess.

Mystery and intrigue:
Is the guy who's 'going to be a mod' really meaning that?
I'm putting that at 25-75.
Its a Lark.  25% chance looks generous.  Its there for objectivity purposes.
Chances he actually wants to be one:  About the same 25%.
We're supposed to believe it?  25 again.

That increase isn't fast enough for that.

The numbers are daunting - especially when one doesn't try to cheat by cutting them.

Will there ever be Real discussion of the real hardware speeds of the computers here ... ?
The 'nodes' guy will say 'we don't care about the true speeds of the computers !'
Translation:  'We're only supposed to care about what he cares about'
To have a proper discussion about how fast computers can actually go at chess things - a separate forum would need to be made with the nodes guy blocked.  And with the word 'nodes' excluded.
Because he would spam and bury that here.

But that separate forum probably won't happen.
Who the participants are in a forum prevails most of the time.
In a real research project - it wouldn't be like that.
Clock speeds of computers would be a central issue.
There would be no obfuscations with the words 'nodes' and 'square root'.
Smart money investment is not Word worship.

But he has redeeming qualities

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/bump-here-aim-for-1000-bumps-70447557

The other kids will just love him.

And the increasing number of sockpuppet trolls

Even with much better software than now -
say with a 100-fold increase in speed and a 99% reduction in errors -
you're still looking at many millions of years if not billions or trillions of years.
But you know the conversation is crippled when the true hardware speed of the computers is not properly discussed and not constantly factored in and 'nodes' is put in instead.
'The guy' is just aching for the common units of computer speed to be mentioned. 
The tactical spam-power becomes clearer when you see other posters much better informed and much more math/science-capable than him acceding to use of the word 'nodes'.  
'Nodes' means 'no discussion Essential to the subject' ...
For those who actually prefer 'nodes' - they 'should' still be able to express everything with much more legitimate units of speed.
But 'should' and 'do' are up to each poster.

Elroch posted some material about nodes.
But the point is that the term is obfuscatory ...
its used by 'the guy' to cut the discussion off from the realities of very limited computer speed.
No matter how fast computers are compared to yesteryears ...
they don't stack up well against the number of possible legal chess positions.
That number doesn't look daunting to those relatively unfamiliar with exponents because of the compact way its expressed ....

A 45 digit number - all to the left of the decimal point - we're talking about a number that is many trillions of times greater than all the seconds of all the lifetimes of everybody combined who has ever lived on earth.
Its a subject in itself - the nature of such numbers.

Except you've got it wrong though - 
'illusion of knowledge' is not it.
Its about obfuscation - not credentials.
You know about decoy/deflection in chess.
Its about that - not the rating of the person using the term.

An analogy that is.

Desperately - the user of 'nodes' does not want the true hardware speeds of the computers to be linked to the project.
That is one of his top priorities.
And he's been demonstrating he has the power to prevent such linkage.

@Optimissed -
we'll have a rare moment of direct communication.
You could do well to tell your son that somebody is using 'nodes' to prevent discussion of the true hardware capability of computers in chess projects.
That he's even been able to veto common units used to discuss such speeds.
Your son might know how to talk to you about speeds of computers in a way that gives you the actual information.
Its ambitious - but he even might be able to tell you how to blow the use of 'nodes' right Out of the Water ...
but that's interpersonal science - not computer science.
As for the 'square root' cheating I would predict that your son would have intense disdain - you maybe shouldn't even mention it.
You might even get 'why are you even talking to such a person at all in that case?'
The idea here - destroy 'coverup' rather than blatant cheating about the nature of the task.

Only very basic questions about computer hardware speeds - and different units used.
If you're on a roll - questions about how to blow 'Nodes' out of the water.

But I'm to 'give advice' about how to approach your family member ?

Lol Hahhhhhhhhahahahahahah.

This forum.... Is.... 

.. 

... 

.... 

..... 

..... 

...... 

..... 

...... 

Something which is nothing

"Weird you should have imagined I asked something like that"

I'm referring to a possible future event.  Not a past event.
Should I be surprised that 'past' was read in?
No - but that doesn't have funny value.
What was funny to me was the preposterous idea of giving somebody advice about how to approach a family member in a single particular future context.
Which you prompted by choosing to mention such approach in the first place.

As was said - a 'rare' moment of direct communication.