Chess will never be solved, here's why

No it's not. You have to claim it, you don't have to "claim" checkmate or stalemate. It is like touchmove. An actual rule of the game itself you don't have to claim, it is based on the position itself. If the scoresheets are sloppy or the arbiter hasn't been literally standing over the board counting, guess what, even after 200 moves the game will have to keep going. Same with touch move. You have almost no comparative skills.

The game can continue for 5898.5 moves without the 50 move rule ever becoming a consideration. But under FIDE competition rules the game terminates if the players have made 75 consecutive moves each which are neither pawn moves nor captures. Anything the players do after that is not a part of the game (even if the players think it is).

I think if I were playing Black below I might give it some consideration. (I can't speak for your good self.)

Perhaps better phrasing in your original post might have been, "In this position white wins no matter where the kings are unless he doesn't". If you just say, "In this position white wins no matter where the kings are", people could take it to mean, "In this position white wins no matter where the kings are".

Rules are regulatory whether you have to claim it or not.
You're playing with semantics. Rules. Regulations.
And you still don't get it about 'practical'.
The world doesn't stop because a game is 'supposed' to go on forever.
You need to be 'comparative' between the real world and foolish dogmatism EE.
But you're not going to be.

It is impossible for a chess game to continue forever. Repetition is inevitable once no more captures are occurring and pawn moves have been exhausted. An infinite chess game is impossible given a finite number of pieces and squares. You don't want games to continue forever, stop giving ridiculously long time controls for "classical" chess. 50 mins each side + 5 second increment with no additional time added at any point, that's it. The whole 2+ hours + another hour on move 40 + 15 mins on move 60 with the increment jumping to 30 seconds is absurd. Even Levi literally admitted in his recent videos that all that extra time ends up doing nothing but making you overthink things and make more mistakes, and that he plays better with faster time controls. It's likely that this is the reason Magnus offered that draw in game 12 of the Fabiano World Championship Match in a +2 position, because he couldn't take the grueling nature of those consecutive long games and wanted to take it to rapid. 2 hour time controls are much more unnecessary and take up way more time than exceeding 50 moves would be.

Well that's gonna be irrelevant when posting the game results because an accurate scoresheet and/or arbiter approval is needed to declare a draw via 50 move rule. Just like if a player claims touchmove and the other denies, no witnesses, the claim is nullified by default. So the arbiter may decide to start counting that 75, but that will added onto whatever was already played (real game or not) so it will be more likely 150+ moves before the game actually ends. Unless it's an online game that can detect the 75, but that number is even more ridiculous than 50 or 100.

from EE
"It is impossible for a chess game to continue forever. "
And water is wet too. Now you want to work the word 'forever' wanting to take it literally. I skipped reading the rest of your post.
But your positions continue to be ridiculous.
Will you be able to replace tygxc in ridiculousness?
Doubtful.
Your dislike of the 50 move rule will not substitute for his 'Moon Rocks' business products regarding 'solved in 5 years' and 'nodes per second' and 'taking the square root' and similiar engines unable to beat each other 'proving' something.

@EndgameEnthusiast2357

Yes. Obviously, if the players and arbiter are not competent enough to arrive at the correct game result, you could get an incorrect game record and result. But that's probably well outside of the topic.

In the positions I set up I put the black king and its R B N close together in the center of the board and the white King and Queen on opposite diagonal corners. Same with black King and its R+R in the center.
Important that they're not close to each other and diagonally a long way from each other on squares the B can't hit if its there.
Maybe R B B is different. With the bishops not moving on the same color squares.

There is no repetition rule in a game of chess played under current FIDE basic rules, nor any limit on the number of moves. It's easy to exactly describe an infinite chess game under those rules, though as far as I know, impossible to carry out in practice (bearing in mind the pieces have to be moved with one hand which would be difficult once rigor mortis has set in). You have to decide if you want to consider infinite games in solving that version of chess. They would normally all count as draws since neither side has won (any win terminates the game).

I have actually tried various positions out with SF v SF at fixed think times 2^n seconds per move, n=0 to 11 (1 sec to 37 minutes) per move. Winning positions under both basic and competition rules and drawn positions with 12 draws resulting in either case.

Important is you can't use SF to tell you theoretical results. If the positions are difficult even for 5 man chess it's likely to both draw against itself and give you a meaningless figure in its analysis.

If you want to see what percentage of positions (ply count 0 positions under competition rules) are won drawn or lost for a particular endgame look on the Syzygy site. The position counts may be somewhat opaque, but the percentages are very close to accurate (bear in mind "frustrated wins" are draws under competition rules and wins under basic rules).

Repetition is 5-fold to have the guarantee of claiming of draw under FIDE. There's no two players on this planet that would shuffle their pieces endlessly more than that expecting something else other than a draw. Repetition is as solid a draw as stalemate/insufficient mating material. And under USCF pretty sure "insufficient losing chances" could be invoked in otherwise drawish positions. Time control is the issue, not the number of moves. These endgames that can take 30+ pawnless captureless moves to win with perfect play only occur once in every 5,000-6,000 games on average.

I realize you can't depend too heavily on the Stockfish feature here.
But here's the point:
Say you do set up positions and look at the SF evaluations -
And it finds a Big Advantage for one side.
Then you know that 'something's going on' and its not hard to find out why.
Another one is 0.00 as opposed to 0.1 or something like that.
Where SF is being very particular about 0.00.
There are other variations on this too.

@EndgameEnthusiast2357

Under FIDE what? There is no 5-fold under FIDE basic rules and never has been. And what players on this planet do probably bears very little relation to any solution. The topic is, "Chess will never be solved, here's why".

You're getting to know EE.
Like tygxc - he never backs up on his invalid assertions.

this thread is so long

Martin you are absolutely the best with chess diagrams and Stockfish info and its weaknesses and so on.
When I said 'you know something's going on' I just said 'going on'.
I didn't try to insist the computer is right.
In other words I didn't do an EE and ignore objectivity.
I did indicate that you might see 'lines' as to what Stockfish was 'excited' about or 'particular' about.
Why did I say that?
Because I've seen it so many times in the tactics puzzles on the site - of which there are over 50,000.
So - hundreds of times after attempting the puzzles with or without success I've gone to its Analysis button to see 'What if ...?' and 'What's wrong with ...' and it nearly always is pretty good at telling me.
And then I think 'Oh yeah ... that's Right! Why didn't I see that?'
So although Stockfish is flawed - it can be very useful.
Like with Wikipedia. Flawed. But not useless.
----------------------
So there's another potential application of this forum.
players going over their games and tactics puzzles.
And tactics puzzles are definitely Very connected with Solving.

Agreed. SF is a brilliant piece of software for any considerations of practical play. Just of little or no use in the in the context of the topic. Doesn't pretend to be.

You can't complain, just as you can't complain if your graphics program doesn't give you a schedule of your appointments for the coming month.

People do try to abuse it by asserting its evaluations represent theoretical outcomes, but that's their own problem.

oh my god you guys are still at it