Chess will never be solved, here's why

A multiple of 100 is reached by Me, yet again!

I'll take your bet that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white at odds of 10^24 to 1.  How much do you want to stake?

£10 ^30 please.

thats making an assumption that black's moves are perfect/good.  also, you need to calculate moves by black in response to white moves that differ from the seed.  

"Probably 1 e4 e5 and 1 e4 c5 draw as well,
but we only need one to weakly solve Chess, so the other is not relevant."

actually no, both are relevant, because you dont know which one draws, wins, or loses. you choose one, and if that one fails, you have to check the other.  but you cant gaurentee that the first one you choose works

tygxc you are also still assuming a draw.  

my GUESS is a draw.  it hasnt yet been proven, though.

its extremely statistically likely.  

     Most of us, myself included, agree it's a draw, but also realize that neither the strongest human players nor the best contemporary engines can irrefutably demonstrate that this is true.

Asserting anything about the distant future is wholly misguided, with the exception of this statement.

     The only constant is change. Mais, plus sa change, plus c'est la meme chose.

@8203

"making an assumption that black's moves are perfect/good"
++ No assumption is needed:
it becomes certain when the black moves lead to a 7-men endgame table base draw,
or a prior 3-fold repetition.

@8204

"both are relevant, because you dont know which one draws, wins, or loses. you choose one,
and if that one fails, you have to check the other"
++ No: the grandmasters chose the best candidate to draw as black disregarding all alternatives. If a 7-men endgame table base draw or a 3-fold repetition is reached in all lines,
then in retrospect the selected black move was right.
Yes, if 1 e4 e5 were to fail, then 1 e4 c5 would have to be checked, but that is not realistic.
You cannot find any white win after 1 e4 e5.

@8208

"hikaru says also draw but he is very confident. when they asked he says we just know it"
++ 'That ... every even integer is a sum of two primes,
I regard as a completely certain theorem, although I cannot prove it.' - Euler
Still considered true, still unproven.

" 'That ... every even integer is a sum of two primes,
I regard as a completely certain theorem, although I cannot prove it.' - Euler" 

yeah, but that doesnt mean anything.  

"No: the grandmasters chose the best candidate to draw as black disregarding all alternatives. If a 7-men endgame table base draw or a 3-fold repetition is reached in all lines,
then in retrospect the selected black move was right." 

you assume that thats whats going to happen.

Irrefutably perhaps isn't the best choice of words since if it can't be shown to be a draw then neither can the proposition that it's a draw be refuted.

Since the word "statistically" adds nothing of value, you're saying that in your opinion, it isn't certain but it's extremely unlikely that chess is not a draw.

IMO it's down to personality types. Some people prefer to commit themselves more than others. Different ways of thinking, one of which is not "better" than the other. Committing oneself, in general, can lead to very positive results. Not doing so tends to avoid negative results.

at the moment its not *just* my opinion that it is extremely unlikely that chess is not a draw.  

its based on the game databases and programs that we already have.  conditional probability.  

@8215

"that doesnt mean anything"
++ It means that a renowned mathematician regards a theorem as completely certain without proof.
Likewise Chess being a draw is completely certain.