Chess will never be solved, here's why

"Be fair. Some contributors are."
Hi again Martin !  
If that refers to some contributors being willing to discuss algebra relevant to 'solving chess' ...
well that's good to see !
Regarding one of the members 'promising' a 'weak' solution -  I don't think that's a valid promise.
In other words I will stipulate 'weak' solution - and I'm saying that can't be be delivered.
The further impediment of 'strong solutions' isn't needed - is what I'm suggesting.  That's why I'm saying it clouds the issue.
It has a tendency of making the so-called 'weak' solving look better than it is ...
I would be even willing to stipulate 'don't worry about castling or en passant either' - and were still looking at millions of years to solution.

This could be argued even with just the 'evidence' of only 7 piece piece positions truly 'solved'.  
Start with the humungous number of such positions
Adding one piece would multiply by an upper bound of 57 squares x 10 piece types.  In other words by 570.
Yes - that could be cut down by some positions that are illegal just by their nature as opposed to 'how they got there' (needs to be ignored too - very much so - that's 'games' again - not positions) - 
but those illegal positions - to be eliminated would still have to be found - and I'm suggesting it would be a minority of such positions.  How could one add a piece to 7 pieces on the board and most of the positions are illegal? what could be eliminated right away?
all positions where both kings are in check - all positions of impossible discovered double check (which is always discovered check)  - such positions could be practically eliminated because they refer to what's on board at the time.  All positions any pawn would be on the back ranks.
All positions where the new piece would have had to enable self-check.
That's about it right?
Most positions would survive that.
Now many people would argue that you can't multiply the total solution time by say - 300 there - because with the 7 pieces solved - it wouldn't take nearly as long to solve for 8 pieces as compared to starting with 8 pieces in the first place.  
But - you could legitimately multiply the time taken to get from 6 pieces to 7 pieces - by that 300.  
On the ninth piece - you would only have an upper bound of 56 squares - but again - ten piece types to multiply by.   Could you cut that down because there's a repetition of piece types in some cases?
my point - even if you could cut the multiplier down to 300 again (unlikely) - you've then got 300 x 300 times the 'solving time'.   
That's 90,000 times as long as to get from 6 pieces to 7 pieces.
But it could take longer than that.  Would - in fact.
You've got more pieces on the board - more move possibilities.  More depth to cover all legal possibilities.
It would be More than a 90,000 multiplier just to get from 7 pieces to 9 pieces  ....
Missing:  How long did it take to get from 6 pieces to 7 pieces?
Possible tactic "Hey ! you're supposed to read the article !"
Negatory !  Those who want to push the article are unwilling to publish the time taken from 6 to 7?   
I never demand links.  I never say 'links please'.  I beware people who do because it means they're unwilling to look things up themselves ...
do those pushing the article have a 'burden' to state the missing time information?
Depends on how you look at it. 
But I've suggested a minimum of a 90,000 multiplier of time time just to get from 7 to 9 pieces. 
Wow - 'only' 23 more pieces to 'add' ....
Could we travel to the Andromeda Galaxy in less time?

optimism missed,?

whaaaaaaat?

please help me

#671
Solving chess does not mean creating a 32-men table base. That is unfeasible.
Solving chess means calculating from the opening towards the existing table base, like was done to solve checkers.

The tactic of insisting that one has to read and consider the entire article -
I would not call that 'trolling'.  
It could be called 'fishing and testing'.  
Its a bit like insisting that to talk here - one is required to read and consider each and every post made in the forum so far.
Anyway - by these illogics it could be insisted that anybody taking a position is required to read and consider the entire contents of any linked website posted.     
Which of course - is not so ! 

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.