Chess will never be solved, here's why

Black can win faster than that.

@Elroch
I'll quote your notes further. Here. So as not to have a gigantic post.
Also - many graphic options don't seem to work properly when using the chess.com quote feature.

"A term unfortunately coined is 'weakly solving'."
"Nothing unfortunate about it. It's a label, perfectly understood by everyone who seriously uses it (or who can read a wikipedia article)"The fact that its understood and accepted doesn't mean its good terminology.
A much better term would be 'approximations to solving'
.We're going to disagree on this one. But that's okay.
Because neither of us is fragile or delicate.
-----------------------------------

but tygxc would then be likely to use 'computer evaluation' ... like have the computer 'dismiss' if its evaluation is for more than two point advantage for one side.
----------------
"Yes. This is junk. There is no doubt that you could find a million bishop sacrifices it would get wrong. Probably the easiest way would be to have them reaching a tablebase position that it gets wrong."But he doesn't get it that that's a circular argument that fails to take into account that the computer is fallible and hasn't 'solved' chess in the first place and can't do so.
ExactlyBut then I added to the effect that tygxc also doesn't seem to get it that the computer can't validate itself by saying its right. Nor can tygxc so validate. He doesn't get it.
-------------
from Elroch:
Using this neutral network and its algorithm for searching, it does not ignore positions like 1. e4 e5 2.Ba6. Rather it gives them a low priority.That's what I'm saying too. In different words.
Is such a thing 'solving'? I would say its an approximation to solving.
In the case of that Ba6 move I wouldn't call it a 'guess'.
I would say its reasonable and an approximation. A reasonable one.
-------------------------------------
But then there's a point:
If Stockfish assigns an advantage of +10 to either side - at any point - then I would say that means the losing side can't hope to draw unless the winning side makes a blunder or plays very inferior moves from there.
So its 'reasonable' for the computer to only assign a few more billionths of seconds to such positions. For example - to Queen sacrifices.
But now the Bad News.
If Stockfish needs a +10 for either side - to stop sustained analysis of whatever position ... that's not going to help it enough with its task.
Its still looking at many trillions of years to 'approximately solve' chess in that case. 
--------------------
will computers ever be able to complain?
How many computers does it take to ...none of those jokes on the net.
So maybe I can coin one.
tygxc is the foil that stimulates the topic here. 
Not 'the guy' whose name begins with O.
How many computers does it take to convince tygxc his logic is faulty?
None. It can't be done. Neither by computers nor by humans.
But he's okay though.

you'd be better off not reading what you don't want to read.

LJ now claims he didn't read - but was still still foolish enough to comment about what he says he didn't read.
Apparently LJ is not interested in the forum topic.
O gets muted twice so suddenly LJ goes nuts while showing up here.
He's a member of chess.com a few weeks.
With twenty straight 'won' games.
I guess he would be useful for 'posting around' ...

Bro you do the same thing

What makes you think he did read just cause he saw bright colors

No I don't BC.
And I also didn't claim he read.
You're telling falsehoods again.
But that's expected.
Difference between projection and non-projection ... the projecting person is telling falsehoods - the other person is not.
You'll probably now project your own projection again.
But that's expected too.
Ever think of discussing the forum topic?
Try it out.
See ya.

@12175

"Some have as high as 40." ++ 40 legal moves, but most of these transposing or not sensible. Chess is full of transpositions: the branches of its tree join together in the same nodes.

"Your 3 number" ++ Is the average number of non transposing moves.
Proof: 10^38 = 3^80. Pigeonhole principle.

"You might as well extend your mistaken premise and say that 1 e3 is not winning because 1 e4 is superior, or 2 Be2 is not winning because 2 Bc4 and Bb5 are better."
++ No. We can dismiss 1 e3, as it cannot be better than 1 e4. 1 e3 draws just the same as 1 e4, but it is unthinkable that 1 e3 would win while 1 e4 would only draw.
We can dismiss 2 Be2, as it cannot be better than 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5. 2 Be2 draws just the same as 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5, but it is unthinkable that 2 Be2 would win and 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5 would only draw.

"you cannot achieve perfect Alpha Beta search"
++ That is right, but it can come close. The exponent might be a bit larger than 0.5.
For Checkers it was 0.67. Chess engines have evolved more than Chinook.
Chess is easier to prune than checkers.

"but it is unthinkable that 1 e3 would win while 1 e4 would only draw."
No it isn't.
e3 protects the critical diagonal that leads from b6 and c5 into f2 and g1.
And e4 puts the e-pawn on an unprotected square and its also then too late to get the pawn back to e3.
tygxc - you're trying to be 'rigorous' in a misplaced way.
While ignoring rigorous in other contexts where its imperative.
That isn't meant to be personal though.
I am talking about your positions about the forum topic.

Some forums have 50,000 posts or more and go back several years.

Nah you pretend to ignor optimissed all the time and claim you don't read his posts lol now if only I could find when you said that hmmm

Chess will never be solved. The computing power required is too much

from BC
"Nah you pretend to ignor optimissed all the time and claim you don't read his posts lol now if only I could find when you said that hmmm"
I didn't say 'all the time'.
Again you're telling falsehoods BC.
Again you're in denial.
Like when I caught you accusing multiple members of 'blocking everyone'.
And when I caught O claiming he was the only one discussing the forum topic.
A lie.
Your 'hoping that O will be muted' is understandable. Although a mistake.
Your hoping that I will be muted is pathetic though.
You hope to deter people from posting ... but you always fail.

Yes.
But in theory it could be done someday.
Computers will get more powerful.
Better programs will be devised.
The computer time could probably be put to better use though.

<iframe id="11911531" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;border:none;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=11911531"></iframe><script>addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"11911531"===e['data']['id']&&getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>

Next you'll be claiming that any move of a knight to the rim of the board is suboptimal and ergo not possible in a winning strategy...

interesting.
Perhaps from the Andromeda Galaxy?
A treatise on Field Density?
Remember - you've got to hit that fourth button from left before you try to use an Embed Code.

All kinds of odd-looking moves can be good.
I remember in a big Karpov-Kasparov world championship game Karpov played his bishop back to c1 early.
It was the best move.
And playing the f-bishop back to f1 after castling and Re1 is a move you'll see in GM play sometimes.
Karpov was great at positional stuff. One of the hardest players to beat. Ever.
I'm not claiming I understood/understand it though.

Not 100% of the time obviously