Chess will never be solved, here's why

Exactly.

99.7% of all possible positions are not relevant.

#3927

"99.7% of all possible positions are not relevant."
++ Only 10^17 positions of the 10^44 legal positions are relevant.
That is 1 position in 10^27 positions.
  0.0000000000000000000000001% of legal positions is relevant.
99.9999999999999999999999999% of legal positions is irrelevant.

#3905

"I just understand that all your shortcuts require determinations to reduce the 10^44 positions "
++ No, there are no determinations needed at all. Only a tiny fraction of the 10^44 legal positions shows up during the solving process. Losing Chess has been weakly solved with only 10^9 positions not 10^44.
Look at the 3 sampled positions counted into the 10^44
https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking
It is clear that errors must have been made to reach those positions.

"Your arbitrary reductions will require a massive amount of computation to apply your arbitrary criteria to each position simply to eliminate it from consideration."
++ You still do not get it. I do not apply criteria and I do not need any computation to reduce positions, they just do not show up during the solution.

"More like a watered down attempt at a forward moving tablebase to meet the retrograde analysis in the middle." ++ That is how Checkers and Losing Chess have been weakly solved.
Have you read how they have done it?
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/LCsolved.pdf

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/checkers_is_solved.pdf 
They did not start from the set of legal positions and then reduced that. They started from the initial position and then calculated towards the table base and at the end they had weakly solved it and then they counted they had visited 10^14 resp 10^9 positions in the process.

"you are not working backwards from mate" ++ I am not trying to strongly solve chess and compile a 32-men table base, that is not feasible.

You're all three wrong in your different ways.

When asked to give a reason why I shouldn't be able to know that chess is drawn, haiuku couldn't get past the idea of "because it's unknown". When asked what could cause the equalising tendency in chess to mysteriously reverse, the answer was "because Relativity wasn't predicted". When told that there's no comparison because chess is a defined and finite system **in the way it operates as opposed to the search tree**, there was the verbal equivalent of a blank stare.

tygxc believes that anyone disagreeing with the definitions of the technical jargon he prefers to employ is showing they don't understand it, even though he's shown that he never even attempts to understand things he didn't know, preferring to reject them. I include tygxc here because although he also thinks chess is drawn, his confused ideas on the subject and an insistence that "the definitions are good" make it difficult.

bickler is a tricky combination of both of them, who cherry-picks what he wants, to win arguments he wants to engage with, for whatever reason; and constantly deflects and avoids good arguments, meaning that he doesn't engage. Instead, a constant engagement with tygxc means that he avoids the discussion proper and that seems to be a deliberate strategy, aimed at giving an impression rather than producing anything substantial.

No-one has shown that I am not reasonably entitled to believe that I know that chess is drawn with best play. One might remark that there was no proper opposition and that a contrary argument could be better represented by cleverer people. But I can assure you (anyone who is so bored that they're reading this) that a discussion with more able people would mean that there was a good chance chance of them understanding and perhaps agreeing with at least some of the points I've raised.

When the opponent disagrees with everything, that seems to be a childish technique, tending to demonstrate that the discussion goes above the head. Disagreement with everything implies, in practice, understanding of very little. So the argument has been concluded, as far as I'm concerned. No-one here has shown that I cannot know, without doubt, that chess is drawn with best play.

#3911

"The lines that no one has explored down to the tablebases yet, are unkown elements."
++ Many positions with more men than 7 are known draws or losses as well.
Many endgames with opposite colored bishops are known draws.
Many positions with huge material differences like a queen up are known wins.

"how do we know that the positions in S are draws?"
++ For all positions of 7 men or less and even some positions with 8 men it is known from the table base. For some endgames like opposite colored bishops it is known from analysis. For some middlegame positions with huge imbalance it is known from experience and from logic.

"you have no reason to believe that there will ever be a reliable proof." ++ A matter of money.

"All analyses will be impossible to check." ++ And for Checkers and Losing Chess?

"To me the only real proof is an exhaustive one" ++ Connect Four has been solved independently in two different ways: an exhaustive one by Allen and a set of 7 rules by Allis.
I believe weakly solving chess will be a combination of both.

"If one million mathematicians do all agree that T is a theorem, they might all be mistaken."
++ This has been heavily debated for the Four Color Theorem, but in the end it was agreed.

"A statement like "chess is a draw because of the equalizing tendency" really cannot be considered scientific, or nearly as reliable as a computer-assisted proof by exhaustion."
++ That is vague.
However: white is 1 tempo up, experience shows 3 tempi are worth 1 pawn, 1 pawn is enough to win a game by queening it, 1 tempo is not enough to win, makes sense.

Also: 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 white is a bishop down. A bishop is worth 3 pawns. A bishop is enough to win. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a win for black. That is without an exhaustive calculation to checkmate in all lines.

I clicked on Elroch's link.

<<<<Chess theorists have long debated how enduring White's initiative is and whether, if both sides play perfectly, the game should end in a win for White or a draw. George Walker wrote in 1846 that, "The first move is an advantage, ... but if properly answered, the first move is of little worth".[29] Steinitz, the first World Champion, who is widely considered the father of modern chess,[30][31][32] wrote in 1889, "It is now conceded by all experts that by proper play on both sides the legitimate issue of a game ought to be a draw."[33] Lasker and Capablanca, the second and third World Champions, agreed.[34][35][36] Reuben Fine, one of the world's leading players from 1936 to 1951,[37] wrote that White's opening advantage is too intangible to be sufficient for a win without an error by Black.[38]>>>>

But the above is improperly described in its introduction. The ensuing isn't evidence of  even the beginnings of a debate. Each past Master is expressing certainty that it's drawn.

ie, "is sufficient"
"is now conceded"
"is of little worth"

No hint of a maybe amongst them.

#3939
"sacrifices were sometimes valid "
++ Of course sacrifices are sometimes valid. But 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is no such time.
That is also why the good assistants are needed.

"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+)

The task of the good assistants i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters is to launch calculations preferably from 26-men positions, but also to end calculations in clearly drawn, or clearly won positions, where they would agree on a draw or where they would resign in a real (correspondence) game.

1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
In the initial position white is up 1 tempo.
3 tempi = 1 pawn.
You cannot queen 0.33 pawn.
1 tempo is not enough to win.
The game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 white is up a bishop.
1 bishop = 3 pawns.
1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
1 bishop is enough to win.
The plan is to trade the bishop for a pawn.
The position after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a win for black.

That is simple human logic from simple human knowledge.

Now try the same with brute force by exhaustion

So 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82 moves.
But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.

No-one has shown that I am not reasonably entitled to believe that I know that chess is drawn with best play. One might remark that there was no proper opposition and that a contrary argument could be better represented by cleverer people. But I can assure you (anyone who is so bored that they're reading this) that a discussion with more able people would mean that there was a good chance chance of them understanding and perhaps agreeing with at least some of the points I've raised.

#3939
"sacrifices were sometimes valid "
++ Of course sacrifices are sometimes valid. But 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is no such time.
That is also why the good assistants are needed.

"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+)

The task of the good assistants i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters is to launch calculations preferably from 26-men positions, but also to end calculations in clearly drawn, or clearly won positions, where they would agree on a draw or where they would resign in a real (correspondence) game.

1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
In the initial position white is up 1 tempo.
3 tempi = 1 pawn.
You cannot queen 0.33 pawn.
1 tempo is not enough to win.
The game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 white is up a bishop.
1 bishop = 3 pawns.
1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
1 bishop is enough to win.
The plan is to trade the bishop for a pawn.
The position after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a win for black.

That is simple human logic from simple human knowledge.

Now try the same with brute force by exhaustion

So 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82 moves.
But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.

Your entire universe is surreal, so yes it must be.

What does Stockfish say?  7.5 using chess.com, until the horizon closes in further.  8.7 using the desktop version at 30 ply (over 1 minute).  In the simplest of positions, the engine is 3.33% off with about 3 minutes calculation.  Now extrapolate this to your method...how long did you want each "relevant" position to be analyzed for again...?

I think it does not use the value 9 for a queen. Even after the queen is on the board it rates it 8.x.

This is strange as I winning a pawn in 2 or 3 moves is trivial. But it is worth remembering it is adjusting with other positional factors (activity of kings, pawn control of the centre). 

All complete nonsense - it's surprising the thing can play chess at all.

"The lines that no one has explored down to the tablebases yet, are unkown elements."
++ Many positions with more men than 7 are known draws or losses as well.
Many endgames with opposite colored bishops are known draws.
Many positions with huge material differences like a queen up are known wins.

"how do we know that the positions in S are draws?"
++ For all positions of 7 men or less and even some positions with 8 men it is known from the table base. For some endgames like opposite colored bishops it is known from analysis. For some middlegame positions with huge imbalance it is known from experience and from logic.

"you have no reason to believe that there will ever be a reliable proof." ++ A matter of money.

"All analyses will be impossible to check." ++ And for Checkers and Losing Chess?

"To me the only real proof is an exhaustive one" ++ Connect Four has been solved independently in two different ways: an exhaustive one by Allen and a set of 7 rules by Allis. I believe weakly solving chess will be a combination of both.

"If one million mathematicians do all agree that T is a theorem, they might all be mistaken."
++ This has been heavily debated for the Four Color Theorem, but in the end it was agreed.

"A statement like "chess is a draw because of the equalizing tendency" really cannot be considered scientific, or nearly as reliable as a computer-assisted proof by exhaustion."
++ That is vague.

++ That is vague.
However: white is 1 tempo up, experience shows 3 tempi are worth 1 pawn, 1 pawn is enough to win a game by queening it, 1 tempo is not enough to win, makes sense.

Also: 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 white is a bishop down. A bishop is worth 3 pawns. A bishop is enough to win. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a win for black. That is without an exhaustive calculation to checkmate in all lines.