Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

Hope for what? You see, you think you're clever but that comment of yours was a reversion to the ad homs that you rely on, because you don't have much else. Leave it out, ok?

Definitely thousands, that's for sure. I think never.

That's the red herring because no-one is talking, at present, about draughts or checkers. I mentioned it earlier as a valid example of something that was known before it was proven. You called that a false premise. That can only mean that you didn't believe it was known before it was proven. But the field of knowledge is broader than some people like to assume. It isn't just a matter of deductive proofs, which can be impossible for this reason or that and yet still their subject matter is known. Your arguments proceed from a far too limited understanding of the meanings of proof and knowledge.

#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

#700
I am talking about checkers (= 8*8 draughts) as there we have a proof it is a draw and I propose to solve chess using the same strategy.
As said in chess each capture and each pawn move renders huge numbers of positions irrelevant: never again reachable henceforth.
How many positions are that? We do not know until chess is solved.
It is plausible to assume that in analogy to the checkers proof it is the square root as well. Maybe more, maybe less. Right now taking the square root as well is the best we can do.

I don't think the relevant software exists, which would allow it to be achieved in five years, even if fast enough computers could be instantaneously developed. It's a mistake to rely on the evidence of one person, unless they are a recognised World leader in the relevant field. But it's "just" a chess player, isn't it? "Thousands" seem not unreasonable, given the enormity of the task, to trace every possible line of chess, even after discarding a large majority which are "nonsense chess".

@tygxc

So you did mention, somewhere, that draughts is to be used as a model to analyse chess. It does seem to be a much, much simpler game but the differences may only be those of quantity rather than quality. It certainly doesn't deserve to be rejected as a "red herring", even by someone who doesn't have a full understanding of what's involved. It's a valid model.

#704
The relevant software exists: any chess engine e.g. Stockfish. Likewise checkers was solved using the checkers program Chinook.

Present cloud chess engines have reached 10^9 nodes / s. No need for new hardware.

It is not necessary to trace every possible line of chess. Necessary is to prove that 1 black move exists for all reasonable white moves to hold the draw.

#705
Of course chess is much more complex than checkers (= 8*8 draughts), but the same 3-pronged method can be applied:
1) humanly preparing tabiya for further analysis (26 men for chess)
2) calculating from the tabiya to the table base with a chess engine (Stockfish for chess)
3) looking up in the table base (7 men for chess)

So the result of this five years would be a galaxy full of data which would be incomprehensible. There would be no useful, recognisable output that could be proven to be correct, and that's the point. Any conclusion would have to be traceable, otherwise it would be meaningless. Just another output of another machine, with no means of checking whether it's correct and whether the machine was programmed properly, in the first place.

#708
What I propose is to calculate with Stockfish from the tabiya at a pace of say 60 h / move until it hits the table base and then look up that it is a draw. That is not yet proof, that is begin of proof.

Then retract the last white move and verify it is a draw as well. Then retract the second-last move and verify it is still a draw. Then peel further back like that to arrive at the full proof.

#709
The output would be one large pgn file per tabiya with the core perfect game and its variations, all leading to table base draws.

<<It is not necessary to trace every possible line of chess. Necessary is to prove that 1 black move exists for all reasonable white moves to hold the draw.>>

Yes and in all likelihood, there is more than one such black move for most white moves. But that still means that ALL of chess which is not the result of random play has to be analysed to its limit. Even if, on average, there are 50 possible moves available, of which five are reasonable, we're getting a power of five moves equal to the number of ply. So for a 60 move game, that's 5^120 and that in itself requires an algorithmic approach far, far more accurate than anything that's been written so far. I've just used my computer calculator to work that out and it's approx.
3e +89

You do cite the paper and indeed it does arrive at a figure of 3*10^37 as an upper bound on the number of legal chess diagrams without promotion under basic rules.

You use it in your calculation as an upper bound on the total number of legal positions under competition rules.

If you had taken my advice and read and understood #581 you wouldn't still be making that mistake.

Tromp's latest estimate (not upper bound) for the total number of legal positions under basic rules is (2.6+-2.9)x10^44 and so far as I know no more accurate estimate has so far been produced by Tromp or anybody else. 

The figure you should have used in your calculation (legal positions under competition rules) is therefore (2.6+-2.9)x10^46 the index being increased by 2 to account for the 50 move rule.

I don't think it's the algebra in the paper that @playerafar is complaining about.