Chess will never be solved, here's why

I actually agree with that. Since you said the start of that 5 year period begins when the resources become available. I think you gave a housing analogy, which is also for the most part true. You have to have the money and resources (but most importantly permits) before beginning the 9 month period to build a house. So for a house that 9 month period may not start until 40 years from now. But it still takes 9 months to build the house.

And for chess, I agree, it could only take 5 years to solve. If the starting point is when resources become available. Which is probably at least 200 years from now. But even then my guess is it wont be solved, it will just be a more refined speculation. 

It can't possibly be solved in 5 years. This has been proven by argument, since no proper argument has been given, nor will be given, to show that a solution will ever be possible. As for achieving it in five years from any point in the foreseeable future, we can reasonably say that current understanding shows it to be impossible.

It isn't really a debate, since we don't have the tools to achieve it. It's nothing to do with money, because resources which don't exist would be necessary.

Yes. So we can only guess at when the 5 year point would start. I say at least 200 years, probably at least 300 years from now. For the reason you said, it would take resources that don't exist right now. 

But no matter when it starts, there will be a lot of PatriotGames posterity telling Optimissed posterity "told ya so". 

I think that on all the threads on this subject, the experts have made the wrong assumptions regarding the methods that should be used to at least try to solve this. It's absolutely clear, at least to me, that the answer, if there's to be one, needs to be algorithm based. In particular, the methods proposed by the proponent of "a solution in five years", which sound very much like Chairman Mau's five-year plans, are non-viable. Mau allegedly killed millions with his stupid generalisations. Ditto the Russians. At least this mistake ought to be harmless. 

Well 5 years, starting now, 2 years ago, or even 5 years from now does seem a little unreasonable. 

Or in ten years' time. Just as unreasonable. Arguing with people whose ideas are simply wrong, but they won't change them even when they've been shown to be wrong, is equally unreasonable.

Maybe my logic is flawed, but I would think that if tik tak toe can be solved then so can chess. 🤔

The clever people in this thread are needed to solve that one.

@4073
"I feel there are slightly more attractive investments."
++ Of course solving Chess is not an attractive investment.
Solving Checkers or Losing Chess did not give any return on investment either.
Sending men to the Moon did not give real payback either.
Sending humans to Mars will not give payback either.

"ask the question "is chess a draw?"
++ No, that is not the question.
In the pre-engine are chess games were adjourned after move 40 and resumed next day after overnight analysis. The players tried to answer 2 questions:
1) Is the position a draw, a win, or a loss?
2) How?

Ultra-weakly solving chess is answering question 1) for the initial position.
Weakly solving chess is answering question 2) for the initial position.

White tries to win, black tries to draw.
White fails, black succeeds
Then Chess is weakly solved.

@4075
"If the starting point is when resources become available."
++ The engines exist that calculate a billion positions per second. They cost money to rent.

"Which is probably at least 200 years from now."
++ We do not know when somebody opens his wallet. It might as well be tomorrow.

"But even then my guess is it wont be solved"
++ If the engine exhausts the 100 million billion legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions then chess is weakly solved, then it is proven just like Checkers or Losing Chess, no speculation. We will then know for sure how black can draw.

Your whole premise is speculation...of the worst kind.  Unsubstantiated and with a sole proponent.

You have no idea of the "resources" which DOES exist, and not to mention the possibility that is already solvED.

Also speculation, if you are talking to me.  I have an entire career in computers, databases, and systems design.  

Chess is not already solved, by the way.  It's not even 1% solved.

@4087
"It's not even 1% solved."
++ Yes, that is right. From ICCF WC Finals we have more than 1000 perfect games.
The weak solution of chess is expected to have a proof tree of about a billion positions, i.e. 10 million games. So chess is about 0.01% solved.

Congratulations: you are now a game theorist (for having observed they are very similar types of games: finite deterministic games of perfect information with 3 results).

Oh no! 🥴

@4089

"games that may or may not be perfect." ++ 1469 games, 1177 draws, 1104 perfect games
"a proof tree of about a billion positions, i.e. 10 million games"
++ Still not understood  by crazy people who don't understand anything at all and who still do not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.

You're the one who is in error. Of that, there is no doubt.

And you don't seem to understand the processes needed to achieve the so-called weak solution. You're confusing yourself by sticking to this childish, game theorist jargon. Chess analysis is not game theory. I don't think you understand that and there are some others here who don't either.

@4087
Carlsen, Caruana, and Nepo and their teams of grandmasters and cloud engines have prepared their World Championship matches for months and have presumably already solved B33, C89, C42 that is 3 of the 500 ECO codes or 0.6%.