Chess will never be solved, here's why

"and an axiom cannot be used to prove the axiom itself, like you do."
'trying' to do. For three months. 
Failing - but controlling the forum anyway.
and he's got Nerve - pushing same.  
Is another 1000 posts of that coming up ? 

I put the link in my home page notes.  So I could get around to reviewing that site sometime.
Regarding putting mathematical history on a timeline - creating a timeline in other words - its much easier to do that nowadays than in pre-internet times.

Regarding math and proofs being 'mechanized' it might be useful to know what isn't mechanized - or not yet. Or what can't be.
In a way - the discussion of solving chess is a bit like discussion of the future history of mathematics.
Chess apparently wasn't designed to have a relation to math though.
It was a game of royalties and generals and merchants and nobles is what I've read.  And scribes and clergy.

Don’t rely on links for everything. It’s best to keep up the mathematics and not use links as examples.

🙁

“Playerafar wrote:

Chess apparently wasn’t designed to have a relation to math though

I think there’s more to it than that

Elroch wrote: Not only "could", pretty sure that has been done. I think all of Euclid has been mechanised. Here is a paper about mechanical verification of book I.

Oh, please

Which is what my post suggests.  Something else.
And 'wasn't' is past tense.

Hi !
Who said 'rely' ?
By the way - welcome to chess.com. 
You having joined the site yesterday.

Regarding the 50 move rule - it can be considered an adjunct to chess -
like the issue of what is 'mating material' when somebody's flag falls in a sudden death game.
If the side whose flag didn't fall has an apawn or hpawn in a dead drawn position - then that side wins.  For example.

In a situation where the 50 moves is counting - the exact number of moves left dictates strategy.
Especially for the defending side.
The rule could determine whether the position is a win or a draw anyway though.  With or without strategy.
But that should be Skipped by the initial computer bank and Skipped as initial goal.
It should be skipped as Secondary goal too.
Should be low on the priority list.  Lowest?  Not necessarily.

///////////////////////////////

In a correct way to go at the hypothetical project -
I say - mating material and 50 move rule and repetitions of position are skipped.  (a possibility of a repetition of position  - if there's already been a 2-fold repeat - could again determine strategy.  But could also determine whether its a draw or win because a defending side could perhaps force a final repetition)
But that should also be skipped in the initial stages too.
(nobody else in these forums has confirmed yet that he/she understands why.)

In other words - such a project would be done in Stages.
Multiple computers or banks of computers assigned.
So the first computer bank's job is to generate positions - not games.
Arrangements of pieces which do provide for either side to move.
(Otherwise they'd be the so-called 'diagrams'.  Not good enough.)

Does that mean there's already a legality issue?
In some positions - it would be impossible for either side to move.
For example white's g-knight at f3.  Every other piece at its home square.
Would it be possible for it to be white's move? I don't know.
Is there a sequence of moves that would bring that about ?
Should these issues of 'could it have got there legally?' be left out in the initial stages of the project ?
That's harder. 
It depends on how positions to be solved are to be generated.

Somehow - simplicity has to be maintained - but without the ridiculous premises being pushed over and over again by @tygxc .
That's not personal.  Simply addresses his posts.

Approach - define the initial goal for the initial computer bank.
Assign other relevant tasks to backup computer banks.

Suggestion for that initial goal:
A computer bank proceeds with position generation.
It then classifies every position it generates into categories and then refers each category to the appropriate secondary computer bank.
Of which there might be several.
And like the issue of whose move it is - castling and en passant should be provided for but not in a way that confounds and cripples the initial goals.
Other computer banks get those positions -
further down the Goals priority list.

Many ways to set up those Categories.
Part of solving - classifications of positions.
Links up Hugely with actual chessplaying.

But both the position generation and the classifications would be designed to fit with and greatly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the different computer algorithms assigned to each category.
That would be Top Priority.

Without such stages - the whole project degenerates.