Chess will never be solved, here's why

No, I hadn't seen it before but white's avenue of approach was absolutely obvious, since otherwise, black appeared to be winning. And I'm an afar better chess player than you, so you shouldn't imagine that if it's hard for you then it's hard for me.

Depends what we mean by objectively. You see, I tend to think of that as being somewhat synonymous with "pragmatically". "Deductively" might have been clearer.

'we' again.  I guess there'll be a lot of 'we'.

I don't know whether you saw it before or not.  Nor whether you put it in an engine.  Nor do I care.  Nor do I care whether you guessed or not.
The point concerned that 71% of attempts by players on it failed.
Possibly or probably because Nh5 isn't considered or isn't examined - because of dismissal.
Nor did I say whether I solved it or not.
As usual though - you can't refrain from personalizing.
And it was only a week that you couldn't refrain from namecalling too.  
So  now there's an answer as to the previously stated 'let's see how long you can go.'
Most people easily refrain.  Almost everyone here.

That's probably because most chess players aren't anywhere near to being strong players. I'm not claiming to be a strong player in an ultimate sense, although I have been.

Quite honestly, I am not interested in "how long I can go" before reacting to your insufferable behaviour. Many people have left this thread and left others citing ??

Do you have an imagination? Some people react to you as I'm doing and others just get on their bikes. Why?

    Old American comic cliche: Grandfather tells children complaining about riding the school bus "In my day we didn't have busses so I had to walk three miles to school through a blizzard and three miles back--uphill both ways."

     To quote Warner Brothers cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn: "That's a joke, son, I say, that's a joke". (Most people don't know the character was taken from comedian Kenny Dalmar's radio and film character Senator Claghorn, who originated many of Forghorn's witticisms.)

Computers are getting better.  Faster.  And software is improving too.
But not fast enough.
Supercomputers have been around quite a while.
They can't solve chess.
Too many possible positions.  
Even with just 7 pieces on the board - they still couldn't completely solve (that's why they had to skip castling and en passant on that - even though its still possible in some (but a very low percentage) of 7-piece situations.)

Does anybody care?
Some do - somehow - because otherwise why would there be those huge paid computer projects on the subject ?

Plus - it connects to chess.  Why?  How?
Because that's one of the things chessplayers do ...
Constantly.
They try to 'solve' many of the positions in front of them.
Not all of them.  Much of the time its just - make a reasonable move.
Or try to find an apparently 'best move'.
But there's also 'solve'.
Whether in chess puzzles or in games.  

Solve:  candidate definition -
Find a checkmate. 
 That's the shortest one.  But its not comprehensive enough.

I would have thought that the school bus should be a pleasure, because they can ride with their friends? Like we did? The present trend of taking kids to school in a car seems a bit like child abuse. They are taught NOT to be able to look after themselves but always to be dependent on others, and they're deprived of the company of their friends. Since Patriot isn't probably far off our age, then if it's a joke, I don't get it. I was lucky. We all were, compared with present day kids, who have to be protected all the time. They'll never grow up to be able to think for themselves and they'll be unfit and fat, with a corresponding lower life expectancy. Oh well, it's always up to the parents.

     I know you didn't realize it was a bit of a joke. The joke is that the older generation feels that, as life has improved so greatly over the years, children today have things so much better than they did and so will greatly exaggerate the tribulations of their youth to impress upon the younger generation how grateful they should be.

     Of course real life is never so simple, and some things are gained in the passage of time while other things are lost.

Where did you hear that tablebases did not deal with e.p.? It would be a relatively small addition to a 7 piece tablebase to include all positions with e.p. and castling rights. It is also rather important in a large class of positions with a pawn on the 2nd rank and an opposing pawn in a nearby file. All analysis of such positions would be unreliable without e.p.

Anyhow, here is a position with e.p. being analysed in the Syzygy 7-piece tablebase.

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=4k3/p7/P7/P7/3pP3/8/8/4K3_b_-_e3_0_1

It's this one (black to move) , so you can check it gets it right. 

I didn't realise, although I'm not surprised because I've heard variations on the theme. I just didn't see how it applied to walking in the Himalayas and therefore I thought she was going to hit me with a wondrous, home-grown theory of how walking uphill or downhill as a child helps you become self-dependent, or whatever. I was just waiting to be gobsmacked either with brilliance or puerility, so I was disappointed when you told me it was in jest.

Hang on though ... I'm under the impression that life has done the exact opposite of improving. I remember with fondness being thrashed by everybody for talking at the table and being made to stand outside all night in the snow, for not saying "excuse me", when I was one. It made me what I am today!!

@Elroch - its in the Wiki article about the tablebases.
If in fact there are other tablebases that are better and castling and en passant have in fact been 'covered' - then that would be different.
But only slightly so.
Because even there - 7 pieces would be a miniscule percentage of the total 236,196 possible 'material situations' where each of such situations then each have the massive number of possible possible positions to be further factored in.
Further qualifying 'miniscule percentage' - the 7-piece would include all of its own possible 'material situations' and if all the 'material situations' of its precursors (6-piece down to the two kings) then including all of those into that total too - with the 7-piece is hardly going to be a pinprick in the 236,196 total possible situations.

It gets even more lopsided when its considered that the 8-piece and more each would have disproportionately more positional placements of their pieces - and disproportionately more possibilities for solving purposes. 
 Including of move depth also. 

Some positions could be instantly identified (solved)  as 'illegal' or 'checkmate' - but as to the others identified otherwise as to having a forced route to checkmate or alternatives to checkmate - or not - such linkage would remain to be performed ....

Point:  the up to 7-piece tablebases hardly make a dent in the task.

I used to disappear by myself in the Lake District for three days and do completely crazy things. I once decided to climb straight down Great End as a quick way to get off the fell, because dark was approaching. I could rock climb and so I was climbing down a dry waterfall. Exactly what the experts and textbooks tell you that you should never ever do. So I was on fingerholds and toeholds and I got to the main, overhanging bit of the waterfall. That necessitated a step over to the opposite wall, also finger and toeholds and there was about a 20 foot drop onto jagged and broken rocks. I decided to go back up.

I was wearing an externally framed rucksack, complete with Vango Force Ten tent (which I still have ... collectors' item now) and all my gear. The external frame jammed under the overhanging ledge. Impossible to go up. I considered taking off my rucksack and dropping it and then climbing up. Trouble was, if I was separated from it and had an accident, I had no survival gear and would quite probably die. It was quite high up and would get cold. The dusk started to fall and a very fine rain started, wetting the finger and toeholds. I had to decide. I was starting to get cramp because I'd been on the same holds for nearly 15 minutes. I rehearsed in my mind the exact moves I had to make to step across the void, told myself to go and did it. It was relatively simple climbing down after that and I pitched my tent at Sprinking Tarn. I never ever did anything so completely stupid again. Not even climbing directly up to the summit of ScaFell was so stupid, instead of taking the normal roundabout route, or doing a three day trek in the Himalayas in thick mist, where I couldn't see two yards for part of it.

     Another American comic cliche: the old-timer who thinks everything was wonderful when they are young and "kids today have no respect". The old fogie complains that in their day people were more polite, there wasn't so much sex and violence in mass entertainment, everyone was patriotic, you didn't have to lock your door when you left home, there weren't so many bums on the street, etc. and is punctuated by the old man yelling "Get off my lawn" while the kids roll their eyes.

     Life is change, both in society and personally, some for the better and some for the worse, as I said. In our youth, we didn't have instant worldwide communication at our fingertips, the vast amount of knowledge within easy access, awareness of different cultures, efficient global travel at affordable prices and more. Seventeen years ago my life was saved by medical technology that didn't exist when I was a young man.

     Still, there are things I miss about the good old days. There is a more brazen criminality today, more pollution, maddening mazes of computer garwar to navigate to get to customer service, and in the US baseball has been replaced as the national sport by American football, an extremely violent game that may as well be played by robots for all you can see of the actual people involved.

Doesn't follow. 
And there are other errors in the quoted passage.
Black might have a win against any white first move but however unlikely - it hasn't been proven he doesn't.  
I think its very unlikely black would have a forced win - if only because of the divergence of the 20 white possibilities.
But proving is different from asserting.
Regarding black 'having at least one way to force a draw' against the (supposedly) best white first moves of the 20 - proof of having a 'forced draw option' would require proving it for all 20 possible first white moves.
Error #3 pertains to what white's 'best' first moves are.  And proving what those are has never been done.
Are these errors knowingly been posted as 'clickbait' ?
Very possibly. 
But that's okay.

'Proof is defined any way somebody wants to define it'.
But chess is related enough to mathematics - that there's ways many would agree on a definition of 'proof' in some instances.
Checkmate is very clear.  So are stalemate and hopelessly drawn positions where you can't even hypothetically set up a checkmate.
In math - there's an extremely neat proof there's no greatest prime number.

There's a thing called solipsism.
Can anything at all be proven to anybody who elects and has the means to counter any or all proofs with solipsism ?
Solipsism is apparently a tactical thing though. 
As opposed to a 'condition'. 
If somebody is being 'honest' in their solipsism (or thinks he is) 
he can be asked - "Are you experiencing something? You've been  acknowledging communications - so how can you honestly deny your experiences exist?"

I knew somebody who loved arguing.  Would argue with almost anything.
When I confronted him with something he couldn't argue with -
he was Furious. 
And I was surprised.  It hadn't occurred to me that he would find it difficult to accept a particular thing that others might or would - without the intense stupidity of his emotional reaction. 

I certainly think that American football is horrifically boring. I mean, compared with various forms of rugby which are played in the civilised world. Didn't know it's now considered your national game. We have cricket, football and rugby, mainly. That is, soccer and rugby, I suppose. But we don't call Association football "soccer". I seem to remember we did in the 50s.

Maybe you could find a channel where they show Rugby Union or Rugby League. You might enjoy it much more. It's a different world and far more exciting. It's slowly catching on in the US. I'm enjoying life and certainly don't fret about things I miss. But the best quality of life in the UK *ever* was between 1958 and about 1967. For ten years. Followed by the late 80s and early 90s.