Chess will never be solved, here's why

We know chess is a draw. Those claiming it may not be can make that claim if they like. They can be judged according to their claims, just as we're happy to be.
NEWSFLASH:
It isn't important.

Mountains are generally made of rock and others can claim they may not be made of rock, if they like. It won't affect what they're made of.

NEWSFLASH: We were going to ignore it anyway.

You don't seem to be. You more than most.

Well I would claim I may not be made of rock and also chess under either set of rules may not be  a draw. (But I think, therefore I am at any rate.)

     The list of "facts" that were "known" to be true by those who were considered to be the intellectual elite of past times and the greatest experts in the field, and accepted as gospel by society as a whole but were later proved to be incorrect is so long that would takes weeks of work to list them all. A claim of definitive knowledge needs to be backed up by more rigorous proofs than our present understanding of chess provides.

In that case, we're reduced to things that are "known by intellectual elites" because deductive proofs aren't available. A lot of people think that the Big Bang has been proven, don't forget, whereas it certainly hasn't and probably never will be. That chess is drawn is a thousand times more likely than the Big Bang.

     Whatever we are "reduced to" should then be labeled as "the best working theory" rather than "fact", and just declaring that one's own opinion must be correct and demanding opposing theories be proved with greater exactness than we are able to provide for our own beliefs is intellectually feeble.

You forgot "...in my head" at the end of that .

And that's where the problem lies isn't it?  With one set of people making claims that are absolute, and the other set pointing out that such claims don't hold up and that making absolute claims without any support/backup doesn't really mean anything.

One side attempts to repeatedly spin this topic as diametrically opposed, with an impasse and equality of arguments.  Instead, it's just a few crackpots making claims (or pushing and expanding upon claims by others that are also baseless ala "chess can be solved in 5 years with some networked computers in the cloud and a few lab assistants"), with a bunch of people trying to get them to see reason and logic.

It's not like any of these dynamics are new.  War-whatever (the poster with the Tasmanian Devil avatar) did it for years, The guy promoting his "ABC chess engine" that he claimed beat  Stockfish 100% of the time did it for years, StupidGM did it for years.  Ponz did it for years.  They all fell by the wayside, which will be the fate of these claims as well, ultimately.

Its worse than 'feeble'.
And it can be referred to as 'imaginary default positions' and 'imaginary authority'.  The person so doing apparently also reports people to the moderators while he himself does what he thinks he's reporting but is actually doing himself.   (that's called 'projection'.)  
But that behaviour can be posted 'around'.
In other words - the real and actual discussion can be had - in the same forum or forums.
In addition to 'posting around' the ridiculous assertions -
they can be used - indirectly.

For some reason - this forum 'disappeared' for a couple of days.
Its not clear what happened.  Yet.  

"You forgot "...in my head" at the end of that ."
Lol !      Very efficiently put !

It's the opposite of "feeble". It's being prepared to stick one's neck out and back one's hunches. It encapsulates how mankind clawed its way out of the caves. With approaches like the ones you recommend, we'd still be in the caves and afraid to go outside. We'd be in the sway of priests and witch-doctors posing as scientists and afraid to back their hunches, because they might be wrong!

Nice

Unfortunately, I hardly understood a word. Yes, so we're different people with different abilities. I want to make a point about "proofs".

Proof is being systematically misrepresented as, more or less, something that the experts understand, interpret and recommend to lesser mortals. A proof has to be so according to criteria used by the experts. You have put yourselves forward as "leaders of the lesser mortals", into which category you place basically everyone, because you have no idea who is capable and who isn't, unless they produce a piece of paper, bought and paid for in one way or another. Therefore everyone has to believe what YOU want them to believe and if they dare to speak, say things that you approve of. The scientists are now the priests and the fact that they are humans with their own intellectual biasses doesn't come into it.

Looks like the cat is being ruled by the mice, doesn't it? But is that the way the World really works, or just here online, where the cat can't gobble you up?

4 new posts - two of them short.
The other two by the same person as before.   I didn't read them.
The one - who when interfered with - sees that as somebody else 'ruling' the thread.     (more projection than I've seen before on the website - but with a lot of 'strawmen' thrown in too - attacking his own phony ideas)

Options:  One can post around that stuff - ignore it - interfere with it - or ... quote any post going back to the very beginning of the forum - from somebody else ....
Are forums both about the forum subject - and about the people in them too?
Yes !  Of course ! - but the first doesn't have to be killed off completely ! 
It can survive !   Some of the time.  
for now - I'll try the fourth option.  Quoting from further back. 
Doesn't exclude the other three options.   

And there's a fifth option (and more) ...
a fifth is to refer back to the original forum topic.
I'll do that instead of the fourth.  That can wait.

Will chess ever be 'solved' ?  (and yes - it is not solved now - nor is there a 'default' - except that ...  it isn't known whether it will be - because of two unknown variables.)
The first variable concerns hardware - software - programming.
With a big emphasis on the programming.
But the first two are involved too.  What if there's a million-fold increase in effective hardware/software speed using 'parallel processing' as well ?
That would cut six off the powers of ten involved ...

But the other variable concerns - how long will the human race be around?
If its around long enough - then chess will be solved.
We could conjecture that chess has been 'solved' perhaps in another galaxy somewhere ...

Anyway - in appreciating the enormity of the task ...
again there's options.
One can simply publish links and studies and then take the position ...
'Hey - you may as well not think about it - because this website has done the thinking and can do it better than you so you may as well just take their word for it and read it and accept it as final.
Plus - I'll keep pushing that website and reminding you about it with the idea of you eventually conceding and saying 'OK - end of discussion - that website 'wins' ' "
In theory - every single discussion of anything and everything could end quickly that way ...
"Hey - here's the link !" with response "OK !  Linked website Wins so End of Discussion"
But often I see a very long series of convoluted nested quotes and its 'hey its my website against your website - and my site has More Credentials !' - and that's even worse ! 

Can the actual discussion survive?
Could anybody discuss the task without some sense of algebra and not only what an exponent is but what combinations and permutations and factorials are ?
By the way - no programming skills are required at all to understand the algebra and math involved ....
None.  Nada.  Zilcho !    No internet skills either.  Rien !  Niente!  
Now - that other guy is likely to post and feel somebody is 'usurping' him ... but I and others have an option to post around him - or quote from way back  ...
and its already obvioulsy known that everybody supervises their own posts .....   Extremely Obvious !!
But 'somebody' doesn't seem to catch on to that !   Perenially ?  Year in year out ?        

It seems there's a lot more insanity around than many people suppose. As my wife would say, "there's more out than in".

From earlier:  (skipped the above post)
"It's not like any of these dynamics are new.  War-whatever (the poster with the Tasmanian Devil avatar) did it for years, The guy promoting his "ABC chess engine" that he claimed beat  Stockfish 100% of the time did it for years, StupidGM did it for years.  Ponz did it for years.  They all fell by the wayside, which will be the fate of these claims as well, ultimately."

They're all really 'wayside'.  But still getting some response.
Perhaps sometime in the next five years or so ...
it will be reported that supercomputers were able to 'solve' all positions for 8 pieces or less - instead of for just 7.   
The difficulty increases a great deal for each successive added piece.
For both humans and for computers too.
For two Kings - instantaneous.
For two Kings plus one piece - is it always easy ?
No !   Even with just two Kings and one pawn - it can get subtle ...  whether either or both Kings are substantially lateral to the pawn - or in front of or behind it.  
But for a computer - K + P versus K would be instantaneous nowadays.  
Two Kings plus two other entities onboard could get very tough for humans.  

In pre-computer days - huge volumes of analysis were published about five pieces on the board.
Like R+P versus R.  Various classic situations ... 'need to know' for ambitious players.  More 'situations' than specifically 'positions'.  
There's a 'Lasker position' - and a Philidor's position - a Lucena position - a very pivotal 'Euwe position' - exotic Saavedra positions - a quite advanced 'Vancura position' ...   to be skilled in rook endings (which come up constantly - might be the most common) there's a need to know about them - even if not by those names.
There's a 'skewer trick' too - comes up in rook endings where the defending King cannot leave two squares on the other side of the board from the pawn.   

But this is all with just five pieces.
Not so tough for computers.
But when you get up to six or seven pieces - its starting to get Tough for Everybody - computers included.  Especially 100% 'Solving'.  

^^ You must be the Chess Intellect, Who Keeps Returning. Did you know you virtually kill any thread you try to take over? You're just so clever, no-one can add a thing. No-one can compete with your accuracy, in any jurisdiction you claim as your own.