Chess will never be solved, here's why

Your "one grunt for yes, two for no" directed at Typewriter represents an escalation that is unwarranted.  He didn't do anything but be on the same side of the argument as everyone else that is opposing you, me in particular.  It's abundantly clear who you are angry with, and why.

Consider doing something different.  Also consider that it's a compliment that I am offering this viewpoint instead of just assuming you are an old dog that cannot learn new tricks.

Link a couple of posts where you have typed the word "innit" before today...you have almost a decade of posts to choose from.  I don't much care if you use it offline, here on the forums you do not...as anyone on the various solve chess/chess is a draw threads could attest.

Good game, but your opponent kind of gave it up when they played cxb5 and started playing on the queenside while they were gearing up for a kingside attack, then they did it again with Na5, which was chasing your queen one move too far.  Those two tempi would have come in handy on the kingside.  The loss of the piece doesn't really deserve commentary, the game was already over...

But you don't say how that corresponds with your last definition of weakly solved (or any of your previous ones for that matter).

"Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"

Where do "reasonable" moves come into it?

     I just don't believe that we can use GMs, engines, or a combination of the two to definitively decide which moves are unreasonable. Top human players and the best engines have proved themselves capable of making mistakes in evaluation. Deliberately letting imperfect entities eliminate a great number of positions from consideration in the search foe a solution will create reasonable doubt as to the validity of the conclusion.

     If we do not eliminate so many lines from examination the size of the task and the amount of time and resources needed to complete it, will grow.

But...but...it's entirely reasonable to only check 1 out of every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 positions...

And the rest. He's talking about competition rules.

When someone proposes to make a car engine out of cheese, I don't feel the need to tell them their piston timing is off.

It means that if someone's idea is entirely off the mark, there is no point in discussing all the specific parameters with them at a detailed level.

Not a matter of piston timing. The number of game states (which is what I refer to as positions and what SF works with, so presumably what @tygxc should be starting with) in KBNvK under competition rules is probably comparable with Tromp's number of basic rules positions for the whole game (though it's difficult to say). Not a minor adjustment by any stretch.

I don't think it's a minor adjustment.  I chose that analogy to be expedient.  It covers the point I was making, but is not 100% applicable.

@4618
"The number of chess games is finite" ++ Yes, but too large: between 10^29241 and 10^34082, that is why positions are better than games: 10^44 legal of which 10^17 relevant.

"I had a book with every possible game of chess that could be played
(it might have 10^100 pages or even 10^1000 pages)"
++ At 1 page per game that would be between 10^29241 and 10^34082 pages.

"I would consider that solving chess."
++ No, a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions would strongly solve chess.
Chess can be weakly solved with 10^17 relevant positions.

@4621

"Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"

"Where do "reasonable" moves come into it?"
++ any opposition indicates an act of opposing, i.e. white opposes to black achieving the game-theoretic value of a draw.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1 does not oppose, it helps.

@4622

"I just don't believe that we can use GMs, engines, or a combination of the two to definitively decide which moves are unreasonable."
++ Yes we can. I am no GM and I can definitively decide that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5, 1 e4 d5 2 Qg4 etc. are unreasonable: they do not oppose to black achieving a draw.
It definitely needs a combination of (ICCF) (grand)masters and engines.
The human assistants launch the calculations, preferably from 26-men positions and they terminate pointless calculations adjudicating a draw or a win when there is no doubt.
Thus the humans save time for the engine calculations.

"Top human players and the best engines have proved themselves capable of making mistakes in evaluation." ++ That is right, therefore solving chess cannot rely on engine evaluation.

"Deliberately letting imperfect entities eliminate a great number of positions from consideration in the search for a solution will create reasonable doubt as to the validity of the conclusion."
++ No, if any doubt at all, then calculate.
If no doubt at all, then eliminate so as to save pointless calculation.

"If we do not eliminate so many lines from examination the size of the task and the amount of time and resources needed to complete it, will grow."
++ Yes, of course, but using chess knowledge to eliminate unreasonable lines from calculation is beneficial to shrink the size of the task and the time and resources needed to complete it.

What are you doing here then?  Run along.

It seems like a fruitless course of action to complain about a topic you are voluntarily reading. 

"Why am I watching this commercial?!  I'm so mad right now..."

"Ummm..."

A little test for @tygxc:

How many states (necessary generalisation of position) are there in chess with the 50 move rule?

Can you accurately analyse chess with the 50 move rule while ignoring the 50 move rule?

@4637
The 50 moves rule plays no role at all. It is just a practical rule to avoid competition games to drag on for days or weeks as one side tries to win e.g. KRB vs. KR.
Just weakly solve chess disregarding the 50 moves rule.
The solution with the 50-move rule is the same.
In none of the perfect games we have from the ICCF WC did the 50 moves rule play any role.

Only if the result of a game plays no role at all (i.e. you change the rules so a draw and a win as the same value. After which there is no game).

The 50 move rule changes the optimal value of many positions in games. You should be able to understand that.

So, have another go.