Chess will never be solved, here's why

Silly people. ^ (like that!)

Didn't you mean long before 30 moves?

But it's not limited by the 50 move rule because claiming is optional. And in a practical game you don't claim as soon as it's reached if you have mating material anyway (or even if you don't in many cases). 

Your little friend is still liking your comments but let's be clear about this. Your comments aren't malicious but your ego is being prodded by your little friend, who's manipulating you, because HE sees YOU as an easy target.

It's ALL about YOUR precious ego. You're the one who made the naïve comment, got all upset, completely over-reacted and you won't let it go. You're the sort of poster that people are referring to when they mention popcorn. Your little friend is beyond redemption but you clearly have a lot to learn.

OK, carry on as you were! 

Oh, do shut up. Nobody's interested.

I know and if nobody's interested then they aren't going to mind my meaningless comment, are they. You seem VERY interested. You're nobody?? Because you're certainly interested.  

Anyway why pick on me, you moron?

Because you're the one that keeps calling people morons.

Such vitriol on this thread.

It's all in their minds. They must be very bored.

@7032

"Didn't you mean long before 30 moves?"
++ The shortest transition with optimal play from both sides from the initial position to a 7-men endgame table base draw took 31 moves:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164331 

It appears to be highly relevant to your many, previous descriptions of how you would try to work towards a weak solution in five years, with cloud engines running stockfish and three GMs with cigarettes in long holders. Your belief that is possible, apart from ignoring the time constraints (five years is ludicrous) is based on your belief that Stockfish can evaluate positions accurately. It was obvious to the rest of us that it cannot do that and this example seems to back that right up. A solution needs to be accurate and you can achieve no accuracy with your methods.

Now you will wait for someone else to post or try to answer something you already answered from earlier, because you aren't honest, since you dodge arguments and you don't credit good arguments, since you can't even understand them.

Final position has 10 men. In which 7 man tablebase did they look up the draw?

Mine was faster anyway.

     Even top GMs make mistakes and misjudgements. Today's analysts find errors in games from yesteryear that were considered brilliancies. So how can a group of GMs (smokers or not) be expected to recognize perfect play? How can we rely on their decisions as to which lines to ignore? 

     Top engines will beat any GM. Today's top engines will beat the top engines of five years ago. By the time this five-year "solution" process is complete it will be out of date. 

     There is no way Sveshnikov's plan will produce a definitive solution. There is no way that a brute force calculation of all possible lines, from the opening position to checkmate or a hopeless draw, can be accomplished within a reasonable period of time using today's technology, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

     The only possibility for solving chess I can see is a revolutionary "great leap forward" in data analysis technique or/and computing/storage technology. There is no reason to believe this will never be possible, although I hardly expect to live to witness such an outcome.

Tbh of course he's talking of a "weak solution", which is one backing up a general prognosis that chess is drawn by best play. It means that some pruning is possible, although the methodology is assumptive because it depends on the result being correct: that chess is drawn with best play. It's therefore incorrect methodology, since it boils down to pruning the methodology with a view to the expected result being right and in the unlikely event of chess being a forced win for black, it wouldn't be able to pick that up. Of course, we think we know that chess isn't a forced 0-1 but even so, the methodology means it isn't a proper solution.

Also it isn't fully comprehended that it's impossible to just follow the drawing solutions or lines, ignoring the rest. Since there's a big, fuzzy margin where we can't know if a line is drawing or winning for one side, there's a lot of excess "fluff" that has to be comprehensively analysed, since it may just be that there's a winning line hidden among it which isn't the result of an error in play by the losing side. We think we can believe that isn't so but to assume it isn't so is incorrect methodology. 

The longest chess game is around 6000 moves possible, isn't it? We have limited number of choices in total, not infinite. Game has to end in six thousand moves, one way or another.

So we have 32 pieces, finite number of possible moves. Computers can't compute and store all combinations? to a hard drive?

Then analyze all static positions and give everyone of them a positional value? It doesn't look impossible at least. Just need vast computation power and correct way to approach to the problem.

Yes as I remember it's supposed to be 5800 moves. No, all the move permutations are too much to be stored pretty much anywhere. The computational power would be vaster than anything we can imagine at the moment.

8848.5 moves long. But 5800 or 8848.5 moves long makes no practical difference. Either is impossibly long with current technology and ideas if the starting position is a draw. If it's a mate in 16 that's different.

(That's competition rules post 2017 of course. Under FIDE post 2017 basic rules or pre 2017 rules the longest game is infinite.) 

That's the trouble with videos. It's not. It's 8848.5.

Read the link.

(They probably meant 5899 anyway, or 5898.5 at any rate, depending on how you look at it.)

absolute nonsense. chess is an abstract game and it is not infinite, really huge, but not infinite, it's possible that in the future chess will be solved by a computer using a smart algorithm. I think maybe one day computers prove that chess is a mate in 200 from the starting position. and the only very best move is e4 and not d4 or vice versa. but even after that day chess will stay a competitive sport and people start the game with different openings.

Depends on which rules you pick. Only finite under FIDE competition rules since 2017. Still infinite under FIDE basic rules and infinite under basic or competition rules prior to 2017.

Doesn't stop there being a solution.