Chess will never be solved, here's why

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

Impossible. We still may not have the necessary agorithms by then. They depend on an amazing leap forward in AI, to the point where computers can write their own programming in a way we cannot envisage as yet.

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.

I still don't really know what a node is. Sounds like a point where two quantities equalise, perhaps. Like a short term stage in a program which maybe iterates? Just a guess.

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.

Thankyou for adding what you understand about the term. I agree with you that it seems to be a sort of techno-jargon, used to establish and maintain an illusion of knowledge. I'll look it up. I did the first year of a computing degree before changing to philosophy and can't remember nodes being mentioned. Top-down programming yes, nodes no. It was about 1992.

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.

After he left his job as a software analyst for an American company and joined another firm as an engineering consultant, he told me that he wanted to try to write a chess engine from scratch, without any knowledge of how it was done, as a learning program for himself. I have no idea if he tried, how hard he may have tried or how far he may have got. He seems tremendously busy and working extremely hard as something called a "digital intelligence lead" where he seems to be in charge of setting up teams of programmers to solve software problems or create software for various bodies. When we talk it's usually about personal stuff but I should be seeing him next month so I may get a chance to ask him. But it's a bit high pressure, what he does, and I wouldn't want to talk shop for more than a minute.

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 stopped despairing about people though. Too many of them are crazy to make it good to be involved.

Oh well I tried treating you like an adult. Obviously got that one wrong! When you hit 15 get back in touch.

"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.