Chess will never be solved, here's why

Just post around it, like btickler and playerafar.

And go back five pages instead of one to find a post you're looking for. A bit antisocial.

Do you think you're making progress on this thread though? It seems like an endless round of yes-no interlude. It isn't even clear what "solved" meant so it's likely that it was a troll thread. So far as I'm concerned, it's solved already as a draw. It's certainly impossible to prove it isn't and that's the default setting.

On the other hand, if "solved" means "all lines followed to their conclusion" perhaps that's impossible. Why should they even end? The idea of "5 years on a cloud engine" is pretty far-fetched, even if there was relevant software, which there isn't. So does this thread have a meaning and if not, which seems likely, does the lack of meaning indicate that there's a point to the thread?

Whatever you are concerned, chess is not solved already as anything, any more than the Riemann Hypothesis is solved as true, false, or undecideable.

Obviously his definition of almost anything will be incomplete. For Heaven's sake, you're trying to do some vaguely cutting edge thinking here, so how does that square with referring to a definition that's put forward by, well, maybe you should insert the relevant words and see where it leads

Wikipaedia?

@MARattigan 
the conversation could in theory revolve around whatever the OP (opening poster) appeared to intend - or around various interpretations of 'solved' or around other things legitimately relevant.  It has - to some extent.
Earlier I suggested that the 50 move rule and 3 fold repetition could just be ignored.  Or factored in later.  People appeared to have different positions on that.
But there's also these - I'm combining posts for efficiency ...

Draws are relevant but 'solved' as a draw - doesn't follow. 
Nor is it a 'default' except for those who want it to be.

@Elroch
"You quoted me, and I was talking about the legal moves in a position, so it is my meaning that is relevant"
Doesn't follow.
Point:  the number of immediate legal moves in a current position is  extremely superfluous to the issue of 'examine'.
If it were that simple - how about chess would have been very thoroughly solved decades ago.

It isn't formally solved as anything so, by default, we continue to consider it drawn until evidence comes to light to change that assessment. We needn't hold our communal breath.

I'm speaking from a practical point of view. Individuals can believe what they wish. My own belief is that it's definitely drawn and also that in all probability, no contrary "proof" could ever be accepted as definitely without error.

"we continue to consider it drawn"
Doesn't follow.  As to who 'we' is intended to refer to by whoever - maybe that'll remain mysterious.  

from @Elroch earlier
"Whatever you are concerned, chess is not solved already as anything, any more than the Riemann Hypothesis is solved as true, false, or undecideable."
Correct.  That is progress.

не согласен

When "we" is used undefined, it tends just to refer to people in general. There are those who believe, apparently without evidence, that it is a forced win. There are others who believe it could be a forced win. Most of us (accusative/object form of "we") think it's drawn. Of those, some believe that evidence to the contrary may be possible. Others believe, for one of more reasons, that it isn't possible.

Incidentally, this thread's been going round and round and it apparently hadn't got beyond an unfocussed discussion on the effect of three repetitions and especially, the 50 move rule.

Perhaps I can help on that subject. If a "solution" of chess is required, that is entirely without 50 move rules and repetition rules. Both are irrelevant. A proper search would completely disregard positional repetition, so any move leading to such a repetition would be vetoed, except if a position repetition were necessary to hold a draw, at which point, only one repetition is logically necessary. Regarding the 50 move rule, obviously that interferes with the stated object, which is a full solution. Therefore it is disregarded, since it isn't possible to form a contrary conclusion.

'we' there is mysterious.  And doesn't follow - since there's no established plural number of people who so 'consider'.  
Perhaps somebody could be found in Mongolia - or anywhere - who firmly so 'continues'.
'we' and 'continue' is kind of a double claim - with neither following - neither 'in general' nor any isolated cases either.
Perhaps a poll or survey could be taken worldwide - and a group could be established - taking such a position - which would also mean they would know about each other.  Find out that 'they' (plural) exist.
They could even form a political party.
And perhaps vigorously indoctrinate ...
get people to accept a default (on no basis) by sheer force of personality or by some kind of 'coercion'.   

Much better.
A thing well proven is that there's no greatest prime number. 
Its not a 'default' - which is a silly thing to premise in many situations.
People could reject the proof of no greatest prime ....
or before that proof was developed - claim that 'the default' was that there is one - or that there isn't.  And both would have been invalid.
They could even try to insist or assert or impose 'we' too.

Try sticking a pin in your ridiculous ego. "We" are humans, Your Silliness

And there he goes with the projection again.  Failure to follow his own advice.
And 'We' should so consider - because 'he' so asserts ! 
But @Elroch - in contrast does seem to have a realistic view of it.
In fact - no poster except one has tried to assert 'drawn' as a 'default' ...
let alone with the 'we' nor the even more ridiculous 'we continue'.
It does have some entertainment value.
And @btickler did shed some light on the longterm overall history of 'that'.  Which is also progress.
Maybe we'll also now see more complaints about the thread that 'someone' chooses to invest time in.  Becoming more predictable ! 

But - still progress made.  Chess might never be solved  - yes.
But inherent in that - is that its not solved now. 
And that there's no 'default' about 'drawn'.
Such a position of 'default' could be indoctrinated perhaps ... ?

It has been suggested by famous players that if nobody makes a mistake that the game will be drawn.  But not as a proof or 'default'.
That suggestion is more like a 'practical operating basis' for playing.
Its not 'proof' of anything and not 'proof of default'.