Chess will never be solved, here's why

++No, the onus of proof is normally on the one who claims irrespective, but we've apparently decided to ignore that convention and instead place the onus of disproof on everybody else..

@4434
"the onus of proof is normally on the one who claims irrespective"
++ You claimed 'I know that for a fact', so you have to prove it. Material is even, so a win claim is unlikely to start with. There is no positional advantage. A draw it is.

When I say 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a black win, that is because being a bishop up is known to be winning. I do not have to prove more, but I did and showed a forced checkmate in 82.

@4436
So the 860 rated player 'knows' and does not have to prove.
I at least showed the forced checkmate in 82 of 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, though it is obvious.

Since you insist.

I'll use exactly the same method as your proof so you can't fault it.

So 46...Rf2 is a forced checkmate in 10 moves.
But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.

@4437
47 Rxe5+? is a losing mistake. Then white is down a full rook without any compensation and thus lost without even needing further proof. 47 bxa6 draws as proven @4426.

Now you are welcome to show where in my proof that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82 for black you see any possible improvement for white.

That's covered by @tygxc's impeccable logic; 

But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.

@4441
"But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way."
++ Yes, but in my proof it is true. Otherwise indicate how white could have played in a different way and not lost. You cannot.
In your 'proof' it is obvious that if white plays differently, i.e. does not blunder his rook, white does not lose.

@4443
I have proven that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82, so you have to falsify my proof.
You have 'proven' that 46...Rf2 is a forced checkmate in 10 and I have falsified your proof. 

No you haven't falsified my proof. You've forgotten the bit in your method that says.

But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.

It's the main part of your proof and it applies equally to mine.

@4447
No, the main part of my proof is a sequence of good moves that lead to checkmate.
Your mocking proof is a sequence of bad moves, starting with blundering a rook.

White's 47 Re5+ was not a blunder.

It's a Black win, so White cannot blunder.

And why would I mock your proof? It is at least adequate for that purpose itself (if for little else).

@4449
49 Rxe5? blunders a rook, so the position is no black win but a draw.

I know it's a Black win.

47 Re5+ was not a blunder, but a subtle sacrifice by White to avoid worsening his lost position.

Actually, I am not criticising anyone for using inductive evidence. The problem is incompetent use of it, directly analogous to the reasoning "I have drawn 10 white balls from this urn, therefore the next ball I draw will be white". Also, when I use inductive reasoning, I don't disguise it, nor do I ever claim certainty. Certainty arises from deductive reasoning (such as the mathematics of Bayesian probability. Theorems are applied and conclusions follow.

Anyone who still has fully functioning cognition should be able to follow the following consideration of what can be achieved with inductive reasoning:

Suppose we want to conclude that the position 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6 is winning for white. We start from the time when we have just learnt the rules of chess by have no knowledge of the game.  (Anyone who thinks that at this point we have certain knowledge that the position is a loss for white is clearly delusional, so I hope we can agree that at this point the value of the position is uncertain, i.e. has a probability strictly between 0 and 1 of being a win for white). Take this time to be when chess had just been invented, if you like.

From that point we (the human species, assisted by computers) acquire evidence. This comes in units which we will break down right to the position level - empirical data about what happens in chess games.

At every step in the long path to wisdom by experience we start with a state of belief about whether the opening position is a win or not. This is quantified as a Bayesian probability - a state of belief. After an element of evidence, we have another state of belief about the proposition, quantified as another probability.

The issue is that those who believe we can be genuinely certain about the result of 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6 are obliged to say that at some time, the observation of a single new position - eg the end of a game with a result - caused an uncertain belief about the proposition to change to a certain one.

This is absurd except in one single case - when the last position completed a deductive proof that the result of the position is a win (just like the final step in the proof of the result of checkers, or the step that adds a new position to a tablebase, with a certain result (by all of the positions reachable from it in one move also being in the tablebase).

The idea that one elementary piece of inductive evidence could otherwise justify a change from uncertainty to certainty is misguided and simply wrong.

Of course, I understand that the likes of @tygx will simply ignore this truth and go on as before - the ability to improve understanding can be too limited.

[Note, this description is also a close approximation to the way an AI learns chess. At each point in time it has a model with millions of parameters and it revises those parameters based on any mismatch between its probabilistic model and experience.

It would be possible to repeat the development of AlphaZero with all games starting from the position after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6. This would generate a chess player able to play both sides of this position better than anyone else on the planet. This player would still never be certain about the result of the position of interest (barring issues with machine precision).]

There are different concepts which are referred to as "best", but the key one is that a second-best move leads to a worse result to the best move, assuming table-base optimal play thereafter.