Chess will never be solved, here's why

Your 10^17 assumes w= 1.  In fact, if w = 4, you would have to calculate at least 10^29 positions (assume game length of 40 moves.

@8768
"It’s short hand for 10^34 (your claimed number) OR the established 10^44"
++ No. the 10^44 or 10^38 or 10^34 is the total number of positions: the outer boundary in Schaeffer's figure number of positions (logarithmic).
ICCF WC draws can serve as seeded lines.
The stored boundary and the relevant search space shrink with each pawn move and each capture. For example after 1 e4 e5 all positions with a black pawn on e7 are no longer reachable.

@8769

"Your 10^17 assumes w= 1"
++ No not at all. E.g w = 4. w is the number of white moves that do not transpose.
If we look at all white moves and all black moves then N = w^(2d).
If we look at all white moves and 1 black response then w^d = Sqrt (N)

Ofc the initial search space is 10^3/4 4, that’s the collection of path trees for the game of chess.  That’s how it is by definition.

“If we look at all white moves and 1 black response then w^d = Sqrt (N)”

But you still haven’t addresssed how you find that black move.  You claim that it’s within the top 4 engine moves.  That means nothing.  

@8769

"if w = 4, you would have to calculate at least 10^29 positions (assume game length of 40 moves"
4^40 = 10^24.
4^80 = 10^48.
This proves that the 4 or the 40 are too high.
There can be no more positions than there are legal positions.

@8773

"But you still haven’t addresssed how you find that black move."
++ For black take the top 1 engine move. For white consider the top 4 engine moves.
For black do not worry if the move is exact or not: once the 7-men endgame table base draw is reached, that retrospectively validates all black moves.
For white the concern is that the table base exact move must be among  the top w engine moves considered.
For w = 4, 10^19 nodes/s, 17 s/move the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves with 1 error in 10^20 positions, i.e. no error for 10^17 relevant positions.

@8772

"the initial search space is 10^3/4 4"
++ No. The 10^44 or 10^38 or 10^34 is the total number of positions, corresponding to the 5*10^20 of Schaeffer, the outer boundary of his Figure of Number of Positions (logarithmic).
Within that outer boundary lies his relevant rearch space.
Within that relevant search space lies his stored boundary along his seeded line.

“For black take the top 1 engine move”

That engine move is often wrong. 
“For black do not worry if the move is exact or not: once the 7-men endgame table base draw is reached, that retrospectively validates all black moves“

SO YOU LITERALLY ASSUME THAT THE BLACK MOVE IS GOING TO LEAD TO A DRAW AS PROOF THAT THE BLACK MOVE IS GOING TO LEAD TO A DRAW.

the top engine move has a very real possibility of leading to a table base loss.

secondly “For white consider the top 4 engine moves.”

By definition this is no longer a proof.

you have to consider EVERY move.  Regardless of whether it’s probable or not.

“ 17 s/move the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves with 1 error in 10^20 positions,“

this has not been proven.  You made that claim off of 2 data points that DID NOT MEASURE ERRORS SO IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCURATELY CLAIM A NUMBER OF ERRORS.

You also completely ignored where I pointed out that that alpha zero game database used human-set openings.

@8777

"That engine move is often wrong."
++ At 17 s/move on 10^9 nodes/s the top 1 black move is wrong in 1 position out of 100,000. However, do not worry about that. If the calculation ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw against all white opposition, then that retroactively validates all black moves as right.
If some black move is wrong, then no 7-men endgame table base draw can be reached against all white opposition and the error will show.

"ASSUME THAT THE BLACK MOVE IS GOING TO LEAD TO A DRAW AS PROOF THAT THE BLACK MOVE IS GOING TO LEAD TO A DRAW"
++ No. It does not matter where the black move comes from: a good engine, a bad engine or even a random generator. If some black move is wrong, then no 7-men endgame table base draw is reached and a black move needs retracting to correct the error.
A good engine with more time/move makes less errors than a bad engine with less time/move and than a random generator. A good engine does the job faster than a bad engine or a random generator as the latter need more retractions.

"the top engine move has a very real possibility of leading to a table base loss."
++ Yes 1 position in 100,000. Then a black move needs retracting.

"By definition this is no longer a proof."
++ It is a best first heuristic. If the good moves cannot win for white, then the bad moves cannot win either. If 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 cannot win for white, then 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? cannot win either.

"you have to consider EVERY move" ++ Every move that opposes to the draw. We can discard 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? right away. No need to burn engine time on what we already know.

"You made that claim off of 2 data points that DID NOT MEASURE ERRORS SO IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCURATELY CLAIM A NUMBER OF ERRORS."
++ 3 data points really, the 3rd is infinite time, 0 decisive games, making the extrapolation effectively an interpolation between 3 data points. The errors follow from the number of decisive games: each decisive game must contain an odd number of errors.
As the number of decisive games shrinks to zero with more time/move, so does the number of errors/game shrink to zero with more time/move.

@8778
"alpha zero game database used human-set openings"
++ Where in Figure 2 did you read that?

This is Tygxc's main technique.  Conclusion first, create data and numbers to support the already chosen conclusion second.  You know, the opposite of the scientific method...

The circular proofs where he attempts to prove X is correct using an assumption that X is correct as part of the proof itself and the use of assumptions that imperfect engines can render perfect evaluations and determine errors are just subsets of his backwards plans .

Not in my immediate plans, no.  But that also assumes our understanding of 'things' (eg - physics etc) is correct/absolutely correct, which is pretty debatable (this isn't a knock on science/predictability...I used to almost be a scientist once ).

We have to work with what we know, until we know something else.  If we don't, we might as well posit that a magic stalk of asparagus in a monk's robe will give us the solution to chess in a press release tomorrow.  I call this the Vickalan approach (he's a Tygxc predecessor from several years back, but just as annoyingly repetitive in his day).

"Used to almost be a scientist."

Unsure what that means. Sounded like

"a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea"

Agreed.  The philosopher in me just likes to chime in with reminders that it's all probabilistic.

I can't speak to the specific chance that @priestessparagus64 will tweet proof that the solution is colors working together toward their mutual benefit but, sadly, I imagine it's pretty small. 

One can hope though.

Got a Chem degree but I thought the Vogons would be here by now so I didn't bother doing anything with it.

@8783

"annoyingly repetitive"
++ You are annoyingly repetitive with your fauilure to understand that weakly solving Chess requires much much less positions than strongly solving Chess.

I’m pretty sure btickler is very aware that weakly solving requires less positions.  .  The thing is, there is currently no real estimate to what that “less” really is.  Sure, we are looking for a ~10^20 table, but we don’t know where to look for it yet.  So that space is, by default 10^34 44