Chess will never be solved, here's why

Still going through your anime phase, I see. Things take time, apparently.

Its not about that. Its about the use of jargon in the forum being exploited by a particular person whose name begins with a round vowel to conduct a particular and familiar type of obnoxious operation.

@ Dubrovnik
Your points are reasonable.
I composed a post just now addressing the 'worst offenders' in the terminology.
But came up with a 'shortcut' just now. Like this.
--------------------------------
Alternative words for the forum topic/opening post:
'Is a chess position a 'node' when talking about computers solving all of chess?
If that's true - then the opening position with 32 pieces on their original squares is a 'node'.
Right? 
So then - what is the 'nodes per second' speed of supercomputers solving that one position?'
Answer to forum question:
The speed is much less than one triillionth of a trillionth of a node per second.
Reaction: 'Gosh that's pretty slow. Takes those Dev guys trilllions of years just to do one node??
A hamster could do better than that.'
---------------------
Possibility: 'Nodes per second' might be the worst offender of all the jargon terms.
But there's other 'candidates for the title'.

https://www.chess.com/c/zXGKa8Fg

Reset Checkmate

Where do you guys go to school.

the only person i ever told where was Varelse. and i told him to NEVER EVER tell a/o.

It was Hogwarts, right?

Regarding Dubrovnik's nice presentation of game theory (from Grok)
a certain passage stands out: I added a b c.
'Zermelo’s theorem, published in 1913, proves this:
in any two-player, finite, zero-sum game with perfect information, one of the following must be true:
a) Player 1 (White) has a strategy to win no matter what Player 2 (Black) does.
b) Player 2 (Black) has a strategy to win no matter what Player 1 does.
c) Both players have strategies to force at least a draw.'
----------
(Used single quote marks because its not a direct quote.)
-----------
Its neat in a way. Because each of the three situations seem to exclude each other.
But for much of a game they all appear to be possible. Not one but all three.
(yes - consequences of the game being unsolved)
It looks incomplete though.
It seems there ought to be at least a fourth category.
Only 'seems' though.
From a player's point of view games go through a metamorphosis with more than three possibilities.
Like 'unclear' - 'advantage to' - 'equal' - 'at least a draw' - dead draw - book draw - forced win - book win and so on.
Also players tend to distinguish 'tactical' from 'positional'.
Point: most of the unsolved nature of the game is concerned with positional - not tactical.

I agree with some of that. And game theory does not 'care'.
And its not 'my' fourth. Its about what players encounter.
I'm suggesting that when looking at the subject of computers trying to solve chess -
that can be compared with how players (not computers) actually go at the game.
Which is at the other end of a scale.
And the differences.
In other words a way to link the forum topic to actual chessplaying between people.
I think the opening poster here tried to do that in his early postings.
-------------------
But examples of comparisons:
Players do apply terminologies of opening - middlegame - endgame ...
but when one tries to find thorough demarcations between them - that can be quite a task - especially since there are a lot of overlaps.
But the classification of tactical verus positional seems more critical.
Players know that in tactical situations they can often 'figure it all out before moving' and better players not only figure it out 'better' - they also know to assume there's tactics or 'more tactics' even when such appears to be absent on first examination.
But when its just 'positional' (so often the case) or tactics are also available but are mentally taken care of or don't dominate the position - then players have to 'get into' positional play. 
That's unavoidable for players who are going to play well or improve.
------------------
I think most players know that tactical situations can be 'solved'. (to whatever degree)
But how to 'solve' positional situations?
Is there a 'solution' to same?
Point: - connecting 'solving' to positional chess.
Maybe that can't be done. Or would take too long over the board in games.
But when the situation has few enough pieces - computers can.

Just now I asked Grok about Lasker's manual of chess.
 Asked it as to did Grok agree that Lasker is suggesting in his book that positional play is much harder to teach than tactics. And the AI did agree.
I vaguely remember Lasker saying something in the book to the effect that basic tactics instruction could be taught in 24 hours of lessons but positional instruction would take 120 hours.

The point I'm getting at is how different it is - the way computers go at positional play as compared with humans.
With tactics I think you wouldn't find as much difference.
In theory - computers can 'brute force' a 'positional position' to the point where tactics develop.
And then compare the ensuing tactics to the early positional moves to arrive at a preference.
Chessplayers do a bit of that.
But when dealing with 'positional' they have to go to other things.
Some players theorize its good to use your oppponent's clock time for the positional stuff.
Especially since you don't know what move he'll make.
With the idea that when its your move you have to prioritize the tactics.

@ Dubruvnik
We don't agree on something. I say that chess is both a tactical and a positional game.
And that its 'positional' a big percentage of the time.
And in positional play its much harder to establish a best move or moves.
Including for computers.
But its friendly disagreement right?
We can disagree in much better ways than - 'nuts' can.
'Nuts' referring to a person whose actual name begins with a vowel.
But then almost everybody knows better how to disagree than him.
Including a lot of the kids.
-------------------------
I'll look at that Carlsen reference.
And the subject of how badly the top computers beat the top chessplayers is another discussion not talked much about here. Or not yet. And the manner of their victory.
Just on clock speed alone - I imagine the top grandmasters are going to get in time trouble in games. The computers are so fast.
But there's that issue of positional versus tactical.

I asked Grok about computers giving odds to top players.
But GMs avoid matches with computers it seems.
GM Smerdon was able to beat Komodo with knight odds.
-------------
No data on time odds.
How much time do you have to take away from the computer for the human to have a chance?
A lot. But that was apparent speculation from Grok or its sources.
And Grok indicates Carlsen hasn't played a formal match against a computer.

It doesnt matter if chess is positional or tactical in nature... its neither... All of that is just different artificial ways to describe the relationship and interaction of pieces that have different properties, on the board. All of it can be modeled mathematically regardless if 'positonal' or 'tactical'.

Everybody decides for himself/herself about tactical/positional also what matters.
'Center of the universe' comments pretending to the contrary don't become true because whoever tries to insist they do.

Of course you're allowed to call the positions tactical or positional, bunnies or rabbits.

Whether the vague, artificial definitions matter for a solving process is a different question and stating it doesn't is not a 'center of the universe' position.....

All positions are pieces interacting with each other in complex dynamic relationships. There is no positional or tactical just optimal and suboptimal moves.... Youre correct but on the other hand you saying "chess is 100% tactical" is saying equally little as calling a play or position positional. Checkmate is just an optimal move in a terminal position.

Anyone who knows anything about mathematics and chess knows that all versions of chess can be represented mathematically. That leaves three possibilities;

* Your son is not a top flight mathematician.

* Your son knows nothing about chess.

* You couldn't understand a word he said.

One of those, at least, is highly probable (you can't even spell the word).

The obvious flaw in this reasoning is that unless chess is solved it is impossible to determine with certainty what the "game state" is for most positions, or what constitutes "perfect play".