Chess will never be solved, here's why

#3536
It is not about legal moves, but about reasonable moves that accomplish something.
The initial position has 20 legal moves, but only 4 stand out: 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3.
That is not a subjective evaluation, but it has been derived independently by AlphaZero with no other input but the Laws of Chess.
On 1 e4 there are 4 reasonable replies: 1...e5, 1...c5, 1...e6, 1...c6. Of those only 2 were played in the last Candidates', for good reason.
on 1 d4 there are 2 main replies: 1...d5, and 1...Nf6.
So there are far less reasonable moves that accomplish something than legal moves.
Carlsen said in an interview that he considers 3 candidate moves.

A0 is a engine, not God. It didn't solve chess.

#3538
AlphaZero acquired chess knowledge from no other input but the Laws of Chess.
This chess knowledge confirms the human knowledge accumulated over centuries.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 
That chess knowledge is beneficial to solve chess with the brute force method.
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0004370201001527?token=7C9C654FA40A1A1AB270731F1FFE2C05BD558C23799135CC6B76E6FC6E5C383AE0A3FC09F492AF9B7C422E0E9D923A3E&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20220705135736 

Humans are not God and they didn't solve chess yet.

#3540
Nobody claims chess solved.
Sveshnikov claimed chess can be solved in 5 years if given engines and assistants.

Therefore the evaluations of A0 are subjective.

#3542
The evaluation of AlphaZero is subjective, but the chess knowledge acquired by AlphaZero is objective as it follows by logical operations from no other input but the Laws of Chess. It also coincides with human knowledge. So it can be seen as theorems derived from the Laws of Chess as axioms.

The knowledge we and A0 have is induced from experience. It's a set of "rules" based on statistics and those rules are good in most cases. A solution must prove whether they are valid in any case, when used to play a game. Only a mathematical solution is a theorem.

#3545
1 a4 is not better than 1 e4 or 1 d4. That is valid in any case. So the mathematical solution can use that by omitting 1 a4.
"Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based
methods in game-solving programs. Their main advantage is providing an appropriate
move ordering or selection in the search trees." - van den Herik 

Mixing claims and facts to make them look equally true is a well known technique used by pseudoscientists and interpreting facts in a personal way is another. I will say no more.

Not like he will ever change .  But every 5 years as chess is not solved I am going to laugh at him.

The pseudoscience tactics can be itemized:
Is the real forum topic actually a discussion of pseudoscience techniques and behaviours?  And for the entire course of the forum too?

There appear to be at least five so far.
1)  Obfuscate the true speeds of computers by invoking 'nodes'.
2)  Belittle the task by 'square rooting' to reduce it to a millionth of a trillionth of its actual size.
3)  Pretend that transposition of moves that might lead to the same position reduce the number of positions even though they don't because number of move permutations are a different quantity from number of positions.  Also such move permutations might lead to different positions too - as opposed to the same ones.  Those different positions also Count.
4)  Pretend that considering only four move options at each point of analysis would be legitimate analysis.
5)  Pretend that the failure of strong engines to assign a draw in clearly drawn positions and to further fail by assigning a win instead - 'doesn't  matter' to the task.

there are other pseudoscience tactics manifested so far too ...
like 'credentialism' tactics invoking  den Herik's name and Sveshnikov's name.
Such credentialism is a candidate for #6 main tactic.

Is there any correspondence with Flat Earth tactics?
Probably.   But it might not be a close correspondence.
Different motivation involved.
Seems more sales-pitch motivated as opposed to a belief system and cult.
And to be more like an experiment than an attempt at proselytization.

It seems clear that you don't understand van den Herik's paper.  By contrast with you he is interested in valid solutions, like those of checkers etc.  The heuristics involved can only be used to reduce the number of positions analysed for the first side of a strategy. It is still necessary to examine every defending move, however abysmal it may appear to an unreliable, imperfect evaluation.

#3550
"From the outset two moves, 1.e4 or 1.d4, open up lines for the Queen and a Bishop.
Therefore, theoretically one of these two moves must be the best,
as no other first move accomplishes so much." - Capablanca
To me that is a theorem, not because Capablanca said so, but because it is logical and has been confirmed independently by AlphaZero with no other input but the Laws of Chess, i.e. axioms.
Figure 31.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 

Dress up opinions as 'theorems' ... cherrypick narrow logic and ignore the bigger picture to do so.  Such manoeuvers are as old as the hills.

#3552
"He probably didn't use the word "theorem" here (probably never did)."
++ Of course he did not. But it is. It is true and proven.

"He reasoned using chess player's inductive reasoning." ++ It is deductive reasoning.

You are oblivious to the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. This could hypothetically be fixed, but won't be.

Deductive reasoning

"An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false."

If you can't do it with modus ponens, it ain't deductive.

#3554
I know the difference very well. What Capablanca did was deduction, not induction. He reasoned from how the pieces work and how the initial position is. From that he deduced the importance of the center and of open diagonals and files. From that he came to 1 e4 and 1 d4 as best moves. It is not by trial and error.