Chess will never be solved, here's why

My points stand.  And the concession now made by him -
"That quantity increases at 2c"
Speed versus velocity? I was taught that 'velocity' could include a vector.
I never claimed that the 2c was beyond a 'magnitude'.  Nor that it wasn't.
But in considering radii of increase ... to get the 2c - diametric opposites are required.  
Nor did I claim that rate of change of passage of time cannot occur ...  I don't know why whoever would so 'focus' ... 

The diameter of an illuminated volume increases at 2c - not c.
Radius at c.  Diameter at 2c.  Very simple math.
And - did we hear about some discussion clubs?  Somebody wanting to make it personal?  Always 'in the cards' here.
Issue:  only one person in the whole forum seems to believe that chess could be solved in 'five years' or less.  Not I.
But that's okay.  Its not personal.  
And that person holding to his position has helped maintain the discussion.  

The light not reaching us?  Kind of 'shady'. 
By the way -  Elroch might fill you in on the adjustments for rate of passage of time  - in the subject you bring up.
Why do I think so?  Because I recall him doing so several years ago - while he was also conceding about 2c and about the Big Bang not being 'the universe' -
Point:  you can get 'intellectual honesty' out of him.
He's generally honest in his mathematical and science positions.
And he's apparently been essentially right in everything he's said about 'solving' chess in this forum so far.  No glaring errors.  Yet. 

#1273
People please stay on topic and if you want to discuss relativity or black holes then make a thread in the off topic forum. Now the few meaningful posts get buried under layers of off topic sense and nonsense.

"Therefore 1. ...a5 may still draw."
If it is proven that 1 d4 d5 and 1 e4 e5 draw, then chess is weakly solved. It does not matter whether 1 d4 a5 also draws or not.

Coming back to losing chess: same 8*8 board, same 16+16 men, slightly different rules, solved using only 10^9 of the 10^36 positions, that is not even the square root, it is the square root of the square root.

The number of possible chess games is irrelevant because of the many, many transpositions.
Even the position after 1 e4 e5 can be reached in billions of ways.
It is the number of chess positions that counts.
An upper bound is 3.8521*10^37
https://abldesign.vn/

https://abldesign.vn/gioi-thieu/

#14
Chess even stays a draw if stalemate = win.
The paper shows that the draw rate increases with more time.
Compare figure 2 (a) and (b).

Velocities are vectors. Speed is the magnitude of a velocity, as @Elroch pointed out. As for your point, if a spherical light wave originates from an origin O at time t0=0 and you are in the same reference frame of O, after a time t you see that the distance between O and any point of the spherical front of the wave is c*t. The diameter of the sphere is 2ct and its derivative with respect to time is of course 2c. That does not mean that the points of the surface area are moving away from each other at speed 2c, as you said in post #1257:

An observer A on the surface sees O moving away from him at speed c and a diametrically opposed point B at speed u=(c+c)/(1+c*c/c^2)=c, according to Lorentz transformations, so two diametrically opposed points move away from each other at speed c. Hope that helps.

This is a reasonable request.
And nobody should have to shut down his claim that chess could be solved in five years.  Its obviously relevant.

There are reasons to discuss cosmology and relativity elsewhere.
Some though - might find themselves 'blocked' elsewhere. 
Would that mean they'll collect - in forums where the original poster is inactive?
Note that if the forum moves too much off topic or namecalling becomes too intense - the moderators might shut down the forum.
The departures from the main subject arose perhaps - because of how people perceive the topic.  And then one thing leads to another.

Why has the topic 'broadened' so much ?
Because with only one person taking a side to challenge the forum topic - there isn't that much interest in the topic.
In other words - all but one seem to either agree with the forum topic - or believe it could take a very long time to 'solve' or don't have a position on it or don't want to talk about it. 
Could be that those who are used to always being in charge at home and at work - will try to 'supervise' here. 
'try'.

#1321
I have nothing about discussions about the big bang or relativity, but discuss that in a dedicated thread in the appropriate forum.
Moral or other authority is not the issue, forum rules demand staying on topic.
I still believe Sveshnikov's claim that chess can be solved in 5 years and I have provided facts and figures in support.

So far nobody has debunked any of that.
Nobody has presented any valid argument against it.
On the contrary I have debunked your own invalid calculation.

 When do you think will chess scientists have access to quantum computers which are required to solve chess as said by Shaeffer?

#1324
Quantum computers are already commercially available e.g. from IBM or Google or D-Wave. They offer great potential to speed it up even more. If Stockfish is translated from C++ to Python, then it can run on a quantum computer. Access is there, but somebody has to pay.

However present cloud engines at 10^9 nodes/s are already sufficient to solve chess in 5 years.
Schaeffer calculated for chess with a much too large number of positions. Only in 2021 was the number 10^37 legal positions established. As most of these positions are still insensible, i.e. cannot be reached from the initial position by an ideal game with optimal moves, the true number of legal and sensible chess positions is still lower say 10^36 to 10^31. For weakly solving chess only about the square root of this number needs being visited, to account for the fact that each capture and each pawn move renders huge numbers of positions unreachable and thus irrelevant. Losing chess was solved by visiting only 10^9 positions, that is the square root of the square root of 10^36. Checkers was solved visiting the square root of the number of legal and sensible positions.

I can be convinced of anything and provide "proofs", but if almost nobody believes me and I cannot actually show (for whatever reason) that my convictions are true through real experiments, then those convictions are considered not proven by science. Wiily-nilly, that's how things go. So far, I didn't read any peer reviewed paper providing a POC that chess can be solved in 5 years.

Elroch did provide some comments concerning using 'tabiya' positions.
Plus tygxc's postings are obviously relevant to the forum topic.
And 'positions' offer far more economy than 'games' - although the number of possible chess positions continues to be daunting.
I think I will try a policy of beginning and ending my posts with comments obviously relevant to the forum topic.

While reserving an option - in the interior of my posts to respond to some of the comments here - or to initiate new 'relevancies'.
'Somebody' even seems to think his family details are relevant.

And again - an obvious relevancy concerning using 'positions' in this discussion -
instead of the already proven to be enormous task of adding pieces to endgame tablebases - or the hopelessness of adding moves to opening positions ...
there's an idea of the supercomputers simply compiling all possible checkmate and stalemate positions.  
And all 'hopeless' other draws - such as 2 Kings plus a single minor piece.
I think it would be reasonable to render positions such as 2 Kings plus a rook each - with neither rook immediately winnable - as 'solved'.
(although in 'speed chess' sometimes one side will not agree to a draw including because he/she worked hard to pressure the opponent to be close to flagging down on the clock.)

It becomes more difficult - when for example - each side has a symmetrically -opposing row of pawns.  Such as three unmoved Kside pawns.  And otherwise just Kings.
In grandmaster games - the opponents often agree to a draw in such positions because 'neither side can make progress'.
At much lower levels of chess though - it might be 'easy' for one side to go wrong in such positions.
Even though such positions can likely be shown to be forced draws - that doesn't mean there isn't 'play in the position'.
Before one can really talk about 'solving' accurately - 'solving' might have to be better defined.  
Another example - say the trio of three connected pawns were on opposite wings of the board.  (diagonally)
Which would then make each trio 'passed' pawns.  Now what?   
The computers would be obliged to find all the winning/losing/drawing continuations. 
Would grandmasters agree to draw that?  I haven't the foggiest. 
Idea: 
Better to begin with all the 'final' checkmate and stalemate positions as 'Job 1'. 
That could include 'dead' like 2 Kings plus a minor piece - because those are also very 'final'.
All 'final' positions to be counted up.
They're already 'solved' so it makes sense to count them first.
Notice it doesn't matter in the first two cases as to number of pieces nor 'moves'.  Checkmate and stalemate are the same regardless -
and we would know whose move it is too. 
The player who can't move. 

#1327
"I didn't read any peer reviewed paper providing a POC that chess can be solved in 5 years."
There are 7 sources:

1) GM Sveshnikov: "Give me five years, good assistants and modern computers, and I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess. "

2) Peer reviewed paper on the number of legal and sensible chess positions:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.09386.pdf
upper bound 3.8521 × 10^37

3) Peer reviewed paper on how checkers was solved visiting the square root of the number of positions:
http://library.msri.org/books/Book29/files/schaeffer.pdf

4) Peer reviewed paper on how losing chess was solved visiting the square root of the square root of the number of chess positions:
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/ICGA2016.pdf

5) General announcement that cloud engines have reached 10^9 nodes per second

6) There are 500 ECO codes A00 to E99

7) 50 ECO codes suffice to weakly solving chess disregarding the other 450

Combining 2), 3), 4), 5), 6), 7) confirms 1)
sqrt (10^36) / 10^9 nodes/second * 50 / 500 = 10^8 seconds = 3 years

That is in fact a well set out post.
And we do see many just 'opinions' that don't refute it.  
And many attempts 'credentialism' and attempts at 'authority' (often seen in internet chat rooms) to try to trash tygxc's posts - as opposed to truly debating them.
tygxc is actually doing better than his detractors.  Especially the ones 'going personal' against his posts - or going through the usual semantics/authority/opinions cycles.

He has missed the relevance - when it comes to the simple exercise of the realities of 2c - as opposed to the whimisical c regarding the rate at which the diameter of a centrally-illuminated sphere increases - is 2c.  Not c.
Only one person seems to be sticking to c.  And sticking to ' somebody riding the light beam' instead of the reality that the diameter divided by the elapsed time is 2c.  Not c.  He may be stuck on denial of same for decades.
The others are grudgingly conceding - but trying to dress up the 2c in some way ...   I"ve seen 'vector' and 'derivative' and 'velocity' 'learning/subtle/humble' among the fancy footworks so far.

@txgxc - you missed it - if they can't get that single thing right - then they're disqualifying themselves from refuting your points.
They're doing what you say - retorting with opinions and thereby failing to refute your claims.
But you prefer them to discuss your actual points more closely - 
and that's understandable.
Another point you may have missed - is - your assertions of your points contradicting points made about to you about the difficulty of the task  - do not refute those points that have been made to you about such difficulties.
You have yet to talk directly about the increases of time and difficulty as more pieces are added to the endgame tablebases - and the fact that its so difficult they couldn't even factor in castling and en passant on those. 

Anyway - the situation now between you and those disagreeing with you - is each party more talking at each other than to each other.

Party 1 "2+2=4 so therefore I'm right and you're wrong"
Party 2 "No !  3+3=6 and therefore we're right and it is isolated you that is wrong"
(notice - few or no women seem to get involved in this one )
'Disconnected' communications. 
Very common on internet social media platforms.  
And - 'my link versus your link' and 'my credentials versus your credentials' and 'the credentials of 'my' authorities versus yours - 'mine' are better' ... it rarely ends with any clear result.
Goes nowhere in most instances.
(lawyers and doctors disagree within their professions too)
at the end - when the smoke finally clears (if it ever does) then there's only straight logic - or better .. actual results that determine what's valid.
That's one of the reasons chess is so popular.
The result at the end of the game is Very Clear. 

And through the weeks - Elroch did counter some of tygxc's assertions directly and technically.
I think myself that references to 'tabiya' positions do not constitute proof nor solving.
And 'arguments' that if one move could be forced into a draw - then another different move would be too -  are provocative illogic.  An attempt at tactics.

There's an issue of on who the 'burden of proof' lies.
The answer will depend on who is asked.
Also - defining 'meeting burden of proof'.
Again - what is seen in reply depends on who is so attempting or defining or thinking he (usually not she) is defining.  
General enduring status quo:  Neither party backs up much.
Frequent result: often ends with who 'looked bad' ...
regardless of whether the actual subject was involved or not nor the logic/illogic nor even who actually 'cared' or not. 
Its all as old as the hills.

Again - relevant to the forum subject -
how the task might be gone at.
Chess is not solved.  Might never be solved during the entire future history of humanity.
And - nobody in this forum is part of a project to solve chess - or if so that's being kept 'secret' here.  
So a lot of the discussion here is just conjecture.  Speculation.  

And I have to revise something I said earlier.
I stated in mate positions - there's no issue of whose move it is because its the player who can't move.
But that would only hold in checkmate positions.
Mutual checkmate positions would be illegal.
(didn't consider yet - one side in stalemate the other in checkmate - is it possible?  Yes.  And its checkmate not stalemate.

But mutual stalemate positions don't have to be illegal !  
So I thought I'd look that up.
And - got a result that's on this site !
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/mutual-stalemate
Neither side can move - so if only the position is presented - then we don't necessarily know whose move it is/was.

This suggests a different way of going at the task.
Job 1 - supercomputers compile all possible checkmate positions only.
But do they compile by starting with minimal material ?
Or start from the beginning of the game and compile by minimal moves?
Conjecture: whoever's  formally doing these supercomputer projects probably pursued/is pursuing both - as auxiliary to the main task.  

Non-peer-reviewed "combinations" of peer reviewed papers does not make a peer-reviewed paper and thus are not considered proven by science. It's even worse if one combines peer reviewed papers with non-peer-reviewed statements.

I can agree to some extent, but blunder-cheking is at least something. We can substitute "peer reviewed" with "well accepted by the major part of the specialists", but if only one person and none else is convinced they have proven something, how can we say that it is in fact proven?

@Optimissed

So he could not claim he had solved the problem. But had he solved it, and none else agreed, I bet he would not simply go on presenting his findings on internet fora, claiming endlessly he had solved it.