Is Chess on the verge of being solved?

https://youtu.be/izQB2-Kmiic

@241
The number of chess games lies between  10^29241 and 10^34082.
https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html

However, the number of legal chess positions is 10^44.
https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking 

Losing Chess has been solved using 10^9 positions, a billion.
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/ICGA2016.pdf 

To weakly solve chess needs 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions.
100 million billion positions.

Cloud engines can calculate a billion positions per second.
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis

In 5 years there are 100 million seconds.
5 * 365.25 * 24 * 3600

Chess can be solved in 5 years.

"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov

He said this 15 years ago. He was obviously wrong.

many grandmasters like hikaru say it is since it would probably be solved in a few decades

To be fair, Hikaru has said a lot of dumb things on stream.

he is like that loveable grumpy grandpa, entertaining but at times stupid or sour tho cool

@245
"He was obviously wrong."
++ He was not given the good assistants or the latest computers, so he was not wrong.

The title of this thread is quite misleading. The opening post is about a quite suspicious book promoting the Blackmar-Diemer gambit. It has nothing to do with solving chess or anything like it.

That was 15 years ago.

@251
"That was 15 years ago."
++ Yes, June 25, 2007, but he was not given what he needed, so he was not wrong.

It's reasonable to believe he was wrong since by 2022 standards it would no longer require "the latest computers."

Just because someone says something doesn't make it true.

@253

"Just because someone says something doesn't make it true."

++ That is true, but when one of the top analysts in the world says something, then we should at least listen and consider. Facts & figures corroborate what he said.

He said it 15 years ago, that is plenty of time for 1 GM to agree with him, but no one agrees with him except you.

You, who, by the way, have a history of repeating the most outlandish quotes, even when it requires you to misquote the person, such as when you misquoted Carlsen as saying 1800s blunder on almost every move. I guess you like the attention such claims bring.

Anyway, there is at least one full topic of many people disagreeing with you. I'm not going to relitigate that here.

@255

"He said it 15 years ago, that is plenty of time for 1 GM to agree with him"
++ But can you quote 1 GM who disagreed with him?
Carlsen refusing to defend his classical title can indicate tacit agreement.
Nakamura apparently said a few decades, that is more than 5 years. 

"misquoted Carlsen as saying 1800s blunder on almost every move"
++ I requoted, I did not misquote.

I already provided you with the source which unequivocally showed you were wrong. Your failure to acknowledge it's a misquote makes me think much less of you.

@258
I did not make up a Carlsen quote, I re-quoted an already circulating quote in good faith assuming it to be authentic.
@256
Fair enough. Many people loathe the idea of chess being solved. Science is no democracy.

Ok, that's fair.

Science requires more than one old man's musings. He said "I feel that power" which is much more religion than science.

Let's try to reach the end of our own lives enduring and inflicting the minimal suffering possible. That's about the extent of my lofty goals. Whatever happens beyond the end of one's own lifetime is frivolous to consider.

@260
"Science requires more than one old man's musings."
++ That is true, but it is an expert opinion. I summarised some facts & figures above @244.