Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

One day i think it might be solved but can still be played by humans

So I mentioned the idea of approaching your son.
Who you've touted many times here - and mentioned conversations about on this subject.
Should I indulge your obsession with credentials by reminding you that he 'knows much more than you' ?

Again - 'nodes' here isn't about credentials nor knowledge levels.
Nor about 'you and me'.
Its about a particular person using the term to defeat a much more realistic conversation about daunting computer projects in chess that would likely occur if the true technical speeds of computers involved was openly factored into the conversations.

The posts of @Optimissed have disappeared from this forum.
Which suggests that he has been muted by chess.com.
When I went to the forum there were a great deal of empty pages at the end.
Mutes of a member often cause that.
As to whether its one of those one day mutes - I don't know.
But my post here should fix the empty pages thing.

According to me, you should practice more and more.

Then you'll love it..

@playerafar 

As long as the game is finite, the game of chess will be solvable.

It is not an infinite game, therefore the game will be able to solved, it just depends on which calculations and permutations you use to solve them. Statistically and realistically speaking it can be solved, and though movements are dependent on individual processes of logic(or creativity), dependent on a given position, only the moves that are best or good, will be played, in order to win or 'solve' a given game or position. 

From the perspective of a human, this is unreasonable, although a human being could good at calculating multiple lines to perfection, we all have our limits, as well as the GM's. So accordingly, the only way this game would be solved would be by a chess engine or supercomputer, which would no doubt take some time, but eventually could be done. 

For this matter, it seems clear, that the game is finite, and since it is, it can be solved, especially if the goal is aimed at objective piece placement between two engines, or higher level computers. 

The only way I would overturn this discussion to say that it would not be solvable, is if all of these moves were based on subjectivity, which then would add another layer of 'if chess is solvable'. Subjectivity in this sense, wouldn't allow the game to solvable(in my view), because without the the rigidity of optimal move placement, then perhaps no game(within our outside of chess) is solvable, because a person is given a choice based on intuition, human bias, error, and feeling, rather than structure, logic and order. 

Hopefully, this was informative or helpful in anyway, and can contribute to any further discussions. 

Practice playing chess?
The chess I like the most on the site these days is the tactics puzzles.
I play them unrated.  For a while now in the 2600-3200 range.
(my actual playing strength probably well under 2/3 of that)

Hi @TeacherOfPain
While a finite number of positions does indicate solvability in theory -
we've had a tremendous amount of spam about 'solved in five years'.
I'm predicting more of such spam shortly.
With the hardware speeds of computers concealed by using a misleading units system.
And that spam being doubled down by arbitrarily reducing the number of positions to be solved to a millionth of a trillionth of the actual 38 digit number of positions to be solved.

To get a much better conversation started - the realistic speeds of modern supercomputers needs to be presented in realistic units.
Then somehow an average time needs to be somehow figured simply to consider a position even just one move ahead ...
Then those values need to be compared to the upper bound of positions to be solved.
Then some measure of the number of billions of years for the task could be further discussed.

I know somebody on the site who's a programmer.
He might know how to present the hardware speeds of modern computers properly and to properly relate that mathematically to the real task.