Chess will never be solved, here's why

Two possibilities: either the entire peer-reviewed literature about weak solution of games is wrong, and they could have used hand-waving to ignore the large majority of the computation necessary, or @tygxc needs to learn something.

Heuristics are perfectly acceptably used TO SELECT MOVES FOR THE PROPONENT OF A STRATEGY. NEVER TO IGNORE LEGAL MOVES BY THE OPPONENT OF A STRATEGY.

Capitals to deal with deafness.

You failed to find any support for the validity of "sloppy solution" (this term refers to something that is claimed to be a weak solution but patently isn't because it ignores legal opponent moves).

Haha...

You said sloppy.

@5077

"clearly is a sloppy term, as used by you here.
++ Some moves require extensive calculations to determine if they are optimal or not.
Some moves are 'clearly' or 'obviously' not optimal. They can be dismissed immediately.
Giving up material with no compensation at all is clearly or obviously not optimal.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is clearly or obviously not optimal.
I have shown it is a forced checkmate in 82, but that is not really necessary.

"Only 26% of these games are fully resolved"
++ Even 0% of the decisive games are fully resolved to checkmate.
Most draws are agreed because of a forced transition to a table base draw, or a forced 3-fold repetition e.g. perpetual check, or a known draw like opposite colored bishop endgame.

"one of my fairly recent daily chess games on move 10"
++ I am not taking about a daily game of @Elroch, but about the Finals of the World Championship 5 days/move, engines allowed, between 2 ICCF GM, SIM, IM who have qualified. They usually play on too long rather than not long enough.

Spoilsport! He was probably still trying.

@5076
"NEVER TO IGNORE LEGAL MOVES BY THE OPPONENT OF A STRATEGY."
++ The definition says:
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
It does not say against all legal moves.
It implies an act of opposing against achieving the game-theoretic value.

"From the outset two moves, 1.e4 or 1.d4, open up lines for the Queen and a Bishop.
Therefore, theoretically one of these two moves must be the best,
as no other first move accomplishes so much" - Capablanca

AlphaZero ranked the 20 possible first moves: Figures 5 & 31
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09259 
If the 4 best moves cannot win for white, then the 16 worse moves cannot win either.
That is logic.
Thus 1 a4 can be dismissed and it is enough to consider 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3.

"Should the opponent offer any material, even a Pawn, which in your estimation you may capture without danger, it is advisable to take the offered piece, even if as a result full development is retarded for one or two moves." - Capablanca

"Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success" - Capablanca
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses material. All other things are equal. White loses.
The move 2 Ba6? cannot be optimal and thus can be dismissed.

Actually batter if you come from Wigan. They eat at the chippie.

But they're into bitter too.

You can make good batter with bitter as well.

All those who have been involved in the peer-reviewed research in this field understand that "all opposition" includes all legal moves. That is why their many years of work are based on this notion, not on your second-rate alternative. They would be rightly contemptuous of sloppy reasoning with unreliable, vague heuristics that can have exceptions (and in some cases are known to have exceptions!) . Eg the solution of checkers was not completed by assuming all positions where one side was two pieces up was decided.

It is a given that in time a powerful enough computer will be created that can solve chess, literally finding a path to a win from every possible position.  And really, who cares?  Unless you are Hans Nieman {just kidding, maybe} you don't use an engine when you are playing chess against an opponent.  You have not solved chess, and never will, which for most of us is why we play.  Not for the mathematics, but the art and beauty that can be found in the game.  It is an addiction, our joy and pain simultaneously.  Most of this thread is pointless argument in my opinion, but feel free to differ.  Some people just get off on contention.

Nah, I agree. Most of it is pointless.

Who the heck actually cares about peer revue, unless the research is comparatively worthless and nothing new and groundbreaking is being done?

I should hope NOBODY, who hopes to create something or discover something really worthwhile, cares about peer revue.

"All opposition" includes all legal moves but, for practical purposes, it doesn't. tygxc has far more idea than you do, except for the "5 years bit" with which we both disagree. That is because you're stuck in pure maths, rather than having the practical mind of a scientist.

Better batter by bitter benefits from butter, or don't bother.

It's not actually a given for anyone that understand computers and the numbers involved.  Currently, if you spent the entire wealth of the planet on computers and applied them exclusively to the problem it would still take millions of years.

In 1999 I purchased a brand new  Imac, one of those colorful ones.  It came with a whopping 25mb of ram, and I got the max upgrade to 150mb.  That was a state of the art computer in 1999.  Today in 2022 it's a joke, a mere 23 years later.  It won't take millions of years, it might not even take a hundred.  People really don't understand time, and how quickly our technology is progressing faster and faster.  That chess will be solved by a computer IS a given.  However you don't use computers in otb play, unless you are cheating or the rules change.  Until they start putting micro computers into our heads to assist our brains the technology will be irrelevant, and so will the fact that a computer might have solved chess.

No, it won't happen. The hardware isn't the problem so much as software and especially, storage.

The point is that in the past 23 years the speed of our computers may have only increased a hundred-fold. Msybe by a factor of 1000? I'm only guessing ... I have no idea. But computer speeds probably need to improve to maybe a billion times faster than they are now. And then there's storage and software. The task is more immense than people realise.

 Until they start putting micro computers into our heads >>>

That's completely mad. Believe it or not, you only get one life. Of course, it may be that quality of life becomes so poor that people become willing to take the chance and get implants. Then, naturally, there'd be warfare between the new race of androids and humans. The remaining humans would reason that they either had to become like them or kill them.

A proper science fiction scenario.

Storage is irrelevant, in 2000 desktop processors had 4 million transistors, they now have 13 billion; super computing at this point is off the scale.

But the thing is quantum computing is many orders of magnitude above that too, because they can operate with many outcomes and many assumed initial states, something like chess will be facile. I actually think chess is solvable with traditional processing*, but with quantum computing, it will be trivial.

Some of the simulations of quantum computing could be used to solve something like chess...they can simulate upwards of 5000 cubits currently, I don't think that is far off.

Well then. 

In 1999 when you bought your Imac, I was director of system software development for an ISP.  My computer was quite a bit better than yours, as well (actually both the PC, and the Sun Microsystems server I was running at my desk were quite a bit more robust).  

That is all irrelevant, though.  You need to grasp what 10^44 means.  Engines have never played through ~99.999999999999999999999999999% of possible positions, and they are not even capable of evaluating perfect play if they did.

The storage required would take at minimum our solar system's entire asteroid belt in materials even with the very best estimates for quantum computing, which, by the way, currently cannot process a problem like solving chess as the technology sits now. 

So, unless space flights take a rather giant leap forward pretty quick...you're out of luck even getting started with the initial ore refining in the century you have given yourself.

P.S. Moore's Law is failing to hold true any longer, and silicon is hitting its physical limits, so don't expect it to make any big comebacks, either.  If you don't know what Moore's Law is...then you have really set sail on a rudderless ship.  Time to head back to harbor.