Chess will never be solved, here's why

Its not a hurdle. It would be foolishness.
But regarding the 'storage space needed' -
if you're talking game tree analysis - you'd need more volume than the earth itself.
Numbers trillions of times 10^100th power.

It's either solve chess or cure cancer...

'rigor' is a term to be avoided though. Like 'game theoretic value'
'rigor' has rigor mortis. As it were.

Quite correct. It should be "rigour".

MAR i think im misreading or smth because syzygy quite easily deals with Ka1

Which also has 'rigour mortis'.

Yes, I think you're missing something.

If you click on my link, Syzygy recommends only Kc1 (Syzygy only guarantees a weak solution if you consistently take one of the top moves with minimal DTZ from the first appearance of the endgame - though it can also work from later positions).

Of Ka1, Syzygy says it's losing with DTZ 5. It's not. It draws.

Click on the two fingers and try it against the computer with the strategy I suggested.

But is the topic under discussion whether you like it or not.

(And "rigor mortis" is actually correct - it's from the Latin.)

Is only one term to refer to a much larger topic.
I didn't say I disliked it.
I think it can be improved on.
Many things can be.

But I think the thread topic is clearly about a rigorous solution and is large enough already.

Ka1, Rc2, Kb1 is forced, Kb3, Ka1 is forced, Rc1#. ??? from ka1 all of blacks moves are forced.

Ka1, Rc2 and Black claims a draw by repetition. No further moves are forced.

I must be missing something.

I've mentioned before that Nalimov handles DTM for these kinds of positions just fine.

Here's a Nalimov TB. It shows that, with Black to move, it's a loss in 3 moves with Ka1, or a loss in 7 moves with Kc1.

You can try it yourself here: https://k4it.de/index.php?lang=en&topic=egtb

Is there something I'm misunderstanding?

Now, all we'd need is a Nalimov-type tablebase for all possible chess positions. (Easier said than done, obviously ...)

Yes, you're missing the same as @MEGACHE3SE and @tygxc (who's had it explained to him any number of times already). See previous post.

Both Nalimov and Syzygy are lying about the mate in 3.

Also, Nalimov will manage only a draw as White from this ply count 0 position against Syzygy under competition rules though it's a theoretical mate in 108.

Nalimov provides a strong and accurate solution to the positions it covers under basic rules, but not a solution of any kind under competition rules.

The position shown is a mate in 85 under basic rules.

There are very many positions just in that Endgame where Nalimov will lose points to Syzygy under competition rules. The same will be true of any Endgame that includes frustrated wins, though the positions in question will not themselves be frustrated.

I would guess such positions are most prevalent in the opening.

Which means we disagree on multiple points Martin.

If you're right Martin - then MEGA is likely to 'get' whatever it is you're saying sooner or later.
Regarding 'explaining' anything to tygxc its unlikely that anybody can ever explain anything to him. He doesn't want it explained.
But when you and others do your explanations it isn't time wasted because many others can and will see whatever tygxc refuses to see.
-----------------
As for my explanations - perhaps few will 'get' them.
When Optimissed tried to pretend that 'perfect information' should mean we know the results of that information - Elroch Aced him.
Elroch posted a big long number and said 'we know what the number is - perfectly but that doesn't mean we know its factors.'
the word 'factors' in math isn't a buzzword nor is it techno-jargon.
Probably everybody in the forum knows what a factor is.
Upshot: Optimissed was blown right out of the water.
He tried to do 'damage control' but as is his tendency he just let his emotions run away with him and got himself muted. Again.
----------------------
Inference: to connect properly - use everyday terms in their everyday meanings.
Hey that works! And works a lot better than other terms.
As to what terms to use - that's still up to you or whoever's posting.
I don't claim any authority. None. I have no delusions. I'm not Optimissed.
And everybody can improve too. Except tygxc and Optimissed.
People do try to improve. Improve what they say - what they do and so on.

i see what u mean now MAR - but i would say that its too far to claim that syzygy is lying, after all nowhere does the table base claim that all possible histories are taken into consideration.

btw there would still be ways to mate, and by your logic Kc1 can be a draw too depending on history.

The tablebases are lying in that particular position. They're not designed to be strong solutions of competition rules chess. They don't need to be. I'm not impugning their respective moralities, merely saying they're giving false information.

And Kc1 is not a draw from that position if White plays correctly. You have the history from the last ply count 0 position, which is all you need. If you had a different history you wouldn't be in that position.

Neither would there be ways to mate after Ka1 with correct Black defence from that position. It's a draw.