Chess will never be solved, here's why

The quoted post is perhaps the most revealing post by tygxc these last two years.
He appears to reject objectivity in mathematics.
Not misunderstand - but rather 'Reject'.
Appears to think that math is a 'belief system'.
These next questions are 'rhetorical'.
What would motivate him to think that math is 'a belief system' or should be?
He used the term 'agnostic'.
Do we all have to be careful using that term - lest we be 'reported'?
Who would have contempt for 'agnostic'?
Would such contempt justify dismissal of objectivity in math?
If objectivity in math is dismissed - then that's dismissal of math too.
If tygxc had simply made his quoted statement two years ago - all the conversation since might have been different.

This is what i have been getting at for the last few months, but tygxc has really shown his hand this time. I have always maintained that tygxc has operated outside of deductive logic in this way. I thought that tygxc bringing up a merriam-webster quote as his definition of "proof"(which operated around a threshold of belief) was evidence enough to convince yall of tygxc's alienation of classical logic, but maybe you missed that beat.

The way tygxc frames all of his arguments in a belief-centered way points to this rejection of mathematical truth as a whole, and is one of the main reasons why it has offended me so when tygxc pretends he is acting on mathematical logic while the arguments he makes depend on the fundamental rejection of mathematical logic.

MEGA - tygxc not only rejects mathematical objectivity - he appears to have contempt for it too.
That second factor could be more primary than the first - with the first being a result.

Evaluations by current engines are not reliable, much like evaluations from previous engines...that's the point. The 0.00 is not conclusive unless it is using the tablebase.

I would argue that it is likely the reverse, and that the contempt for mathematical rigor has been borne from tygxc's ego in defending his fallacious position.

but if the purpose of your post was to highlight the contempt rather than simply the rejection than I was mistaken.

tygxc's contempt for mathematical objectivity may come from yet another factor - that I have to be careful about mentioning here.

Well since I commented in this thread, and now get notified every time a post is added... which was a mistake. I want to just encourage those still debating this topic to... do some meditation tonight, light a scented candle, and contemplate the universe, the trees outside, and also why you are wasting your life arguing with these people. Think also about how much you could have done had you not involved yourself in this thread ever. Of all the experiences you could have had... and could still have. Your life is in front of you. For example... for those of you who are single - it is entirely possible you could have met your wife had you not commented in this thread. Or you could have mastered 2-3 new openings by now. Or invented something - maybe invented an entirely new way of deriving tablebases... you could have taught yourself woodworking and built a gazebo for your yard, you could have bought a puppy and raised it into adulthood by now. Many things are possible and still remain possible. There is an infinite, untapped ocean of possibilities before you.

If you get an alert you don't want to click on - there's an 'x' on each alert to just delete it and wait a while by repeating that till one actually wants to click on the alert and thereby the forum.
Whatever we do - time goes by anyway.
Unlike money - you can't put time in a bank.
Privileged people spend a lot of time playing chess and in other leisure activities.
Leisure is 'experience' too.
However much one might want to believe to the contrary.

Just find and click the the checkmark in the "follow" box and remove it...no notifications. It seems a bit silly to tell others to venture out and discover new things if you cannot figure that out ...

You have far too much faith in engine evaluations. Here is a game from a mate in 46 position (Rybka is using the Nalimov tablebase but SF15 is not).

I've left the info statements from Arena in the comments. Notice that the position after each of his first 8 moves is evaluated by SF15 as 0.00 but they're all wins for White.

Here is another I ran a few days ago, this time SF16.1 v SF16.1 playing a mate in 52 without tablebase.

Notice that on move 17 SF with both hats agrees on an evaluation of 88.50 in favour of White, but by move 19 this has dropped to 0.78 (white hat) / 0.43 (black hat) and the game continues to a draw.

The maximum length mate in this endgame is 128, so I think it's safe to say SF hasn't even got the hang of 5 man chess yet.

An empty platitude that has no meaning for this thread.

Just to be clear... I see some people in this thread debating from post 1 all the way out here to post 13177 and beyond. The first post in this thread started in January 2022. Now, 2.5 years later, the debate still continues. I'm assuming this debate has been going on daily. I'm not going to look at every page and see how it went, but it looks like it's been going on daily for 2.5 years. 
So no.... the fact I could not find how to disable notifications does not make this observation just a bit silly. Someone pointing out this is very needed at this point. You cannot just waste 2.5 years of your life debating something this useless with people. That isn't pretense, that's not me soap boxing to you, that is dead serious. How much of your life do you think you can just waste on something so useless and not suffer for it? 
But if you insist - by all means continue, I do not suffer for it, the joke is on you - not me. 
Carry onward!

This is an excerpt from Elroch's recent post:
"One interesting fact I picked up along the way is that most of the legal chess positions have 27 or 28 pieces on the board. This is because of the way the size of the tablebases rises rapidly at first, then reaches a peak and falls again - the latter two phenomena being mainly because the biggest tablebases are much more restricted in the set of pieces that can be on the board."
-----------------------
Elroch's posting there links up with what I suggested earlier - that the number of possible positions arising from a number of pieces on the board - doesn't peak at 32 pieces - it peaks well before then.
Like in a finite series of terms where the largest terms are somewhere in the middle - not at either end.
For example - with 32 pieces on the board - there can't be any promoted pieces - None at All. It would be illegal.
Which would mean two white lightsquared bishops would be illegal.
Five knights would be illegal. Three queens. And so on.
--------------------
Interesting that it peaks at 27 and 28 pieces rather than closer to the center of the series. Which would be at 17 pieces.
2 Kings only 'counts'. So 17 pieces is exactly in the center of the odd-numbered series of 31 'situations'.

Some simple math would have disabused you of your notion. 2.5 years of 100+ posts every day (the thread has been adding at least 2 pages a day of late, if not 3+) would come out to about 73,000 posts. There are 13,000 posts here.

If you did skim the thread instead of making an assumption, you would quickly discover that the thread goes through periods of activity and then periods of non-activity. Not unsurprisingly, the periods of activity correspond to the times when crackpots start making ridiculous claims.

As for people's lives...I consider several of the activities you mentioned previously to be a waste of time at this point...*but*, unlike you, I would not be so crass as to try to tell others that they are wasting their own time in a life where they have free will and choice, especially while "wasting time" in exactly the same manner while decrying the practice. There's a term for people that do this...what is it again...?

Earlier - somebody also argued that Stockfish and other contemporary engines playing each other is a very narrow playing field.
Well pointed out. But I forgot who said it.
Might have been in the other forum on this. The newer one.

I think llama said that

Wonder who disliked this lmao speaks some facts

Doing this in down time is understandable though the problem is when you do it when it isn't down time

It's making an assumption to generalize a specific rate, but let's just grant it's consistently 100 a day - we're then talking about almost 4.5 months of continuous daily posting in this thread - typing out detailed rebuttals, which often takes a significant amount of time. And that's just on this topic... That is a giant waste of time. 
Great defense - you sure got me. People in this thread didn't waste 2.5 years debating, just 4.5 months of continuous debating spread out over the course of 2.5 years! Oh man you really got me.

To waste months of your life debating a topic like this, to make 13180 posts on it, is crackpot behavior.

I find it completely predictable that you would claim other activities such as carpentry, meeting your wife, working on chess, etc. are indistinguishable from debating some pointless topic on the internet. It's predictable because it justifies your behavior, and that's just exactly what I can count on you doing. That's how you got to this point. I wouldn't expect someone with the ability to introspect to wind up debating for 4.5 months continuously a completely useless topic like this. But in reality... all the activities I mentioned actually have some intrinsic value, whereas squabbling over the internet with randos to prop up your broken ego... doesn't have much intrinsic value. No, I'm afraid it doesn't.

Of course you wouldn't point it out to people, because you don't want anyone pointing it out to you, do you?

It's not in the same manner, due to the scale and nature - for starters, if you were to heed my advice it would actually be healthy for you, whereas your debate topic is just some completely meaningless squabble over tablebases that has gone on for 4.5 months. Secondly I have no intention of spending the next 4.5 months here with you addressing every one of your predictable, lame excuses for why you're justified by wasting 4.5 months of your life in an online circle jerk. That's the key difference.