Chess will never be solved, here's why

Well obviously it's going to be confusing if you can't get the terms right.

But it's you who are confused. What you've just said is nonsense. Moving changes the game state. It's a different player to move for a start.

Your second sentence is correct. Your first sentence is incorrect in standard game theoretic terms. You're confusing "game state" with "game theoretic value". In a normally played version of chess without the 50/75M, 3/5R, agreed draw and resignation rules there are not 3 game states; there are around 4.8x10^44.

Another Grock of sh*te.

From https://medium.com/understanding-games/the-game-state-f57e3e512bf7

A game state refers to the current configuration of a game at a given point in time. It includes all of the information necessary to completely specify the game, such as the positions of all of the game pieces, the current score, the players’ turns, and any other relevant variables. The game state can change over time as the game progresses and actions are taken.

In some games, the game state may also include information about past events and actions that have taken place, as this can affect the current state of the game and the available options for future moves. Game state considerations are ever-present in all game design and in the development of artificial intelligence algorithms in video games.

In a board game like chess, the game state at any given point includes the positions of all of the pieces on the board, the players’ turns, and any special conditions or rules that may be in effect (such as en passant captures or castling).

If by "Fairytale time is OVER!" you mean you're going to stop posting screeds of crap from Grock - thank God for that!

AI's are quite easily led. This is useful when they have gone wrong and you need to hold their silicon hands a bit, but it also means if you put garbage in, they sometimes generate compatible garbage.

Strange incorrect addressee there!

Looking back, it looks like you were responding to @Optimissed post #19319.

Bit embarrassing. Sorry about that. It's been a (cough) long day.

AI image

I mated in 11 when I tried it against SF17, but I haven't tried to prove it.

Did you prove mate in 13?

As I said, I didn't try to prove it, but SF is obviously not to be trusted as you already showed.

It should be possible to do it by hand in a couple of hours or three. I don't know how long the mate solver would take. M11 might well be wrong.

I like how y'all kept arguing for 3 years+ when the OP closed their account only 2 days after this post was made lol

But your reasoning was faulty.

Regarding positional versus tactical -
I would say there are positional 'situations' and tactical 'situations'.
Versus positional 'play' and tactical 'play'.
--------------------
Try - a position with only the two Kings and a white h-pawn.
But the black King is on h8.
Are there tactics in such a position?
What are they?
Such a position could immediately disprove there's 'always tacitcs'.
There's a strategy for black. He doesn't need tactics.
There are no tactics for him to go about drawing.
Strategy for black: keep his king on h8 or adjacent to it.
Strategy for white: try to move fast and get black's clock to flag down - he could then claim he has mating material. Will good players with the pawn agree to a draw if black's flag is about to fall? How would that work in blitz tournaments? Could depend on the jurisdiction.
Some could argue that's tactics for white. Clock tactics.
But for black - its positional.
-------------------
Its not a completely dead draw but its dead enough.
'No! Black might not realize and stray too far from h8!'
According to the stated game theory black has a strategy to force a draw. 
He doesn't need tactics nor do tactics to implement that strategy.
He maintains Position.
In 'dead' draws he doesn't even have to do that!
--------------------------
There's a beautiful set of endgames where one side has an advanced passed pawn supported by its King - but each side has a bishop moving on the same color square as the square immediately in front of the pawn.
Many of those positions are wins but some aren't.
Talking about the wins for now - 
Consider a white d-pawn on d7. Both sides with a darksquare bishop.
In the classic win - the winning bishop does a four-square Diamond Dance around his pawn and the other bishop is deprved of its chance to ambush the pawn in sacrifice to draw and instead loses. White wins beautifully.
But I would say that's mostly positional. 
Much less than 50% tactical whether pre-known or not.
Semantically someone might argue - 'depriving somebody of a tactic is a tactic!'
I say its positional. Give your opponent nothing. A clear case of it.
---------------------------
Its a common mistake though - to try to put positional and tactical in 'separate boxes'.
Neither exists in a vaccuum.
You can play positional to get tactics. You can play positional to get positional.
You can play tactics to get tactics. You can play tactics to get positional.
('plus' could be added to the end of each of the four sentences - but that's understood.)
A chess move can be pure positional or pure tactical or a combination of both.
Suggestion: players know this by experience.
But the mistake is to separate them too much.
Good players study mistakes. Not just what they are.
I'm suggesting strong players become aware of mental processes (generic errors) leading to mistakes.

I've beaten maximum strength stockfish without a queen.

AI take over world by first beating us in chess

Regarding positional situations and positional play in chess being 'fiction' -
nobody has addressed my example of King and h-pawn against black King on h8 yet.
Black doesn't need tactics to draw that.
He only needs to maintain Position on h8 or adjacent to it to draw.
Positional situations and play become 'fiction' if the meaning of 'positional' is restricted far beyond its normal restrictions.
Like with 'luck in chess'. If you restrict the meaning of luck enough - it won't exist anywhere!
But good and bad luck exist everywhere there's purpose.
Even some machines can have good or bad luck.
Although they wouldn't have a beer afterwards.
--------------
To get rid of 'positional' in chess - whoever could try to argue that 'if something is 'solved' then it can't be positional'. But my h-pawn example already ...
--------------------
Both parties disagreeing to agree? That could take many forms including the better ones.

You guys debating (with each other and taking it up with AI as well) what is positional and what is tactical are just talking about different things in different context. Its a useless debate. Nicely demonstrates how vague definitions are. The concept of positional vs tactical is useful for human understanding and evaluation, not useful for a context of solving chess. For robots its just pieces interacting with each other in different ways, complexity arising from amount of possibilities available. For humans theres the visual illusions, and danger of mistake from immediate traps etc that play a role.

"Chess will never be solved, here's why" the statement is true if humans keep fighting each other for dominance.

But if humans were to find a new home, in trillion of years they would solve chess.