Chess will never be solved, here's why

please play a game with me

with what?
A moderator was on earlier and warned that we've got to keep the content relevant.  

and read this and leave a comment

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-got-megaphone

that was joke

#676
I cite a scientific paper, it describes in detail how they arrive at the 3*10^37. You ask for algebra. The algebra is in the paper. I do not have to copy/paste the algebra of the paper here. You either accept the outcome of the scientific paper, or you at least read their algebra.

does anyonw play fortine

@tygxc
You're unwilling to state the time needed to get from six pieces to seven pieces?
If so - that tends to diminish the presentation you're making.
Substantially.  Withholding information?
Do they even give the figure?
No - I'm not going to read the article to find out.

#684
The time it took for 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 pieces is described in the link I already gave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase 
That is however not relevant: solving chess is not generating a 32-men table base: that is not feasible.
Solving chess is calculating from the opening to the already generated 7-men table base.

I didn't ask for algebra.  I talked about algebra.
If you have no algebraic skills - you can always say so if you choose.
I suggest you state the times taken.
Its not an 'insistency' !   Lol !!
Its your choice ... maybe - the time isn't given - you can't find it - you don't want to state it ...
but that's getting away from the subject and making it 'you and me' -
point - the critical information hasn't been stated in this forum - or is not forthcoming for some reason.
Very illustrative - time for two pieces -instaneous - three pieces - instantaneous for a supercomputer - four pieces ... how much?
yes it could be googled by any member probably.
We are not confined to one website favored by whoever.
then five - six - seven.
the comparison with checkers is hardly legitimate.
Only two piece types.  32 squares.  Only four angles of motion.
Fewer types of motions along those angles.  
Extrapolation from checkers looks like a red herring to me.  

#686
The algebra leading to 3*10^37 positions is in the paper. I know more algebra than you.
The time it took to generate 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 men table bases is in the wikipedia article and it cites further sources in its appendix.

si!

And its beginning to look like a major concession is now being made -
that thorough solving would take millions of years.   

#689
No, 5 years on 3 cloud engines.
I can repeat my earlier calculations if that helps you.

they can all be solved

"you and me" again.  How would you know how much algebra I know?
A baiting manoeuver?  I think you'll always be doing better than 'the other guy'.   
But what you seem to be suggesting is that the times don't matter.
Otherwise you'd post them.
But apparently you'll post anything but that !   
Looks like there's a concession being made.  Chess can't be solved and might never be.  
Doesn't mean the conversation's over though.  

Touche !  En garde ! 

#692
1.08e37+6.14e36+3.19e36+5.66e35=2.07e37 legal, sensible positions starting from 26 men tabiya
Each pawn move and each capture is irreversible and renders huge numbers of legal, sensible positions irrelevant.
Checkers was solved using the square root of the number of legal, sensible positions.
in analogy to the checkers proof: square root of this: 4.55e18 relevant positions 
cloud engine 10^9 nodes/s
4.55e9 s = 144 years on 1 cloud engine for the whole of chess i.e. all 500 ECO codes A00 to E99
Hence 0.29 year on 1 cloud engine for 1 ECO code e.g. C67
19 ECO codes suffice to prove a draw against 1 e4: e.g.
C67 C65 C54 C53 C52 C51 C50 C49 C47 C45 C34 C33 C29 C28 C26 C24 C22 C21 C20
That is 5.4 years on 1 cloud engine to prove the draw against 1 e4.
A 2nd cloud engine may likewise prove a draw against 1 d4.
A 3rd cloud engine may work on the relevant moves other than 1 d4 and 1 e4 not transposing.
Hence 5 years on 3 cloud engines.

#699
I went through the trouble of explaining once more #697.
At least provide an argument for 'thousands'.
I gave an argument for 5 years.
So the 'thousands' are neither definitely, nor sure.

I only wanted the achievement