Chess will never be solved, here's why

The number of possible chess positions is finite. 
That's proven.
So therefore chess is solvable.  
That doesn't mean it will be solved though.  Nor that it won't be.
Many would argue that its not known whether its solvable until it is -
that doesn't follow either though.  

Can you stop talking b*llocks?

@tygxc has demonstrated that he can keep pushing all kinds of stuff -
like invalid 'reasonableness of moves'
invalid 'square root' reductions 
invalid 'nodes per second' speeds
invalid dismissals of FLOPS/second and a general obfuscation of computer speed in general just by invoking invalid 'nodes per second'  

how is he able to do this?  Well for one - people will be tempted to 'rightly' debunk and refute such claims ...  
another is that there's no chess.com policy against it.
If somebody started insisting  'King and two knights can force a win against Lone King - I Know it !' - then could chess.com shut that down?
At first - no.  Eventually they probably could and would.

But since computers have not arrived at any verdict as to chess solved or not and might not even be able to do so for millions of years ...
then it remains unestablished and therefore how could chess.com stop the subject? 
They'll lock a forum in some instances but that doesn't kill that subject. 
So the claims will continue - including the invalid ones.
How often do they need to be debunked? 
 

#1941
"If you estimate a search space of 10^37 positions, are you saying that policy could miss up to 10^17 positions leading to a different game value than that provided by the proof tree?"
++ No, I am saying that weakly solving chess requires only considering 10^17 positions hence at 1 error per 10^20 positions there remains only 0.1% chance of having made an error.

So how do you explain 5 blunders in 79 positions in the sixth game here? Was it just rotten luck?

(We can look at the difference between 10^17 and 100 x 2.9 x 10^44 x 3^(100 x 2.9 x 10^44) later.)

#1943
"In fact @tygxc appears, on the whole, to propose solving the competition rules game, though he's a little evasive on that question." ++ No, I have said several times: forget the 50 moves rule. The 50 moves rule is a practical rule to make games and tournaments end in a reasonable time, but for the purpose of solving chess it can be considered unwritten.

"The factor "100" here represents positions with the same diagram and side to move but with different ply counts (which can have different win/draw/loss evaluations"
++ No, forget the 50 moves rule. Also there are not twice as much positions as diagrams. For every position with black to move there is a diagram with white to move. Even more: for every position with lost castling rights there is a left / right image. So each diagram represents 2 positions.
Example:
Position = diagram with white to move.

Exactly the same with black to move:

Exactly the same position, white to move:

"If you look at the SF14 v. SF14 KNNKP games in this post SF14 blunders between 1 and 9 times under basic rules in each case."
I like this argument in principle, but there are 2 major arguments against it.
1) You talk about Stockfish 14 on a desktop of say 10^6 nodes/s for what time per move?
I talk about Stockfish on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine and at 60 hours/move.
2) You found some instances where the Stockfish top move was a mistake as indicated by the table base, but did you find any incidence where the Stockfish top 1 move, the Stockfish top 2 move, the Stockfish top 3 move as well as the Stockfish top 4 move were all errors?

#1950
++1 error per 10^20 positions means
at 60 h / move on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine and after 3 takebacks per white move:
top 1 move, top 2 move, top 3 move, and top 4 move are all errors.

We'll hit 2000 posts soon.  And many of those posts will have been invested in the 50 moves rule -
which is one of the 'competition rules' rules.
Frankly - I think tablebases should ignore it.  And ignore repetitions of positions too.
Completely.  Except for repetitions that are forced or can be if needed.
Like availability of perpetual check.  Because that's Forced Repetition.  
Legally Forced.
There's other kinds of forced repetitions.  Usually by deterrence though.
Is there any way to have a legally forced repetition of position that's not by perpetual check ?
There are other ways but they've got to be found and noted.

Like with white pawns at a4 and d4 and f4 and h4 -
and black pawns at a5 and d5 and f5 and h5.
With the two Kings each stuck behind their pawns.
Repetition of position is forced by legal compulsion - without any checking even possible.  Neither side can make progress and the game is a draw.
One doesn't need a 50 move rule for the computer to find and solve such positions as draws.

Drawn. 
By legal compulsion.

Neither side can make progress.

The next one is better.

Now you can give white a darksquare bishop or even five darksqare bishops and give black up to five lightsquare bishops - and its still dead drawn.  
Could add some doubled pawns behind front pawns too - or instead and its still dead drawn.  What difference would it make if the bishops 'won' those pawns ?
Point:  computer's got to find them - as opposed to being concerned with 50 move rules or unforced repetitions.  

#1947
"Not necessary to consider alternatives to what? The move you know is right?"
++ White tries to win, black tries to draw.
If a series of moves ends in a tablebase draw, then all black moves were good enough to achieve the goal of drawing and it retroactively validates all black moves as optimal by the authority of the table base.
If the series of moves ends in a table base draw, then white failed to achieve his goal of winning, so alternatives for white needs exploration, taking back all white moves in a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd validation step.

If you can reach the 7 man tablebases in 3 moves from the starting position, you're a better man than I. SF14 is usually not far short of 60.

#1956
"If you can reach the 7 man tablebases in 3 moves from the starting position, you're a better man than I."

++ No, you misunderstand.
First I advocated before the 3-prong method like in solving Checkers and Losing Chess.
That is also what Sveshnikov hinted at.
1) Good assistants with ChessBase set up 26-men tabiya as starting points for the computer.
2) Then the modern computers calculate from the 26-men tabiya to the endgame table base.
3) Then the exact evaluation draw / win / lost is retrieved from the 7-men endgame table base.
So I will not start from the 32-men initial position but from a 26-men tabiya.

Second, I did not mean to reach the endgame table base in 3 moves.
I mean to consider 4 candidate white moves.

"and it retroactively validates all black moves as optimal by the authority of the table base."

No it doesn't. 

But we'll keep seeing posts like the one quoted in italics. 
2000 posts mark coming up.
At 3000 posts - there'll probably be at least 100 more like that.

Exactly.

I did year one of a computing degree and programming was a hobby for a few years. That doesn't make me an expert but I should at least be able to encounter tygxc's reasoning with some understanding and make something of it, and be stimulated to try to make positive and helpful comments. Sometimes the reasoning is clear and accurate but sometimes I'm left with the question "WHAT?" That happens too often, to be honest, to make me want to participate. There are four or five reasonably active "other participants" but it's worse than cat-herding. For one reason or another, no-one is focussed enough and/or each person seems to think and prioritise differently. The result is that, although progress is being made, it's very slow. It doesn't help that one person is endlessly repeating historical arguments and the rest are probably too polite.

Thank you Martin !  

And - whether the 50 move rule is invoked or not -
it will not change the uniqueness of any chess position.
What Does need to be addressed is Ambiguity in positons.
Ambiguity can't cut it in math and math-related.
Unless you want to have unsolved equations.
So if en passant is possible in 'a position' 
then its no longer 'a position'  - its two positions -
with each one unique to the other and unique to all other chess positions.

Similiar with castling ?  Not quite - but close -
if its an endgame tablebase then obviously it wasn't generated from the opening 32 piece position !  
Which means that anytime either King stands on its original square with at least one of its rooks on its original square - then castling rights must be both preserved And denied.
In other words - with just one rook (and its King) in place - then that must be regarded as two different positions.
With both Kings in place and all four rooks at home - then that must be regarded as sixteen different positions !  
Does that greatly increase the amount of work to be done by the tablebases ??
No No No  !!
Because a very small percentage of simplified tablebase positions would have at least one King at home and at least one of its rooks at home ...
far far under 1% in fact.
It doesn't take a mathematical mind to realize that.
Just a slight slight effort.