True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

It's the 4-4s that should have the widest tree to deal with.

The 32-man tb would be massive :0)

Now that's an understatement....

Bah. Navier-Stokes simulations and flows around planes can wait, but we need that damned 32-men database !

That might take a while...  In the meantime, you can come up with an eight-men tablebase before anyone develops the seven-men tablebase in preparation of developing the 32-men tablebase yourself.  

There remains a storage and retrieval problem. IT appears that DNA storage will make it possible to retain the data as it is generated, but having a chess analysis engine constantly running DNA sequencing remains inefficient.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21570671-archives-could-last-thousands-years-when-stored-dna-instead-magnetic 

Since chess is potentially infinite I do not think it wiil be solved. There is always one more game to play. If you are talking about predicting moves and what is the best move or only move in all circumstances in relation to the moves of the other player I still do not think this would solve the problem. Perhaps there is no problem at all.

When we're talking about perfect play, though, eventually the 3-fold repetition or 50 move scenario will arise and it will t of necessity be to the benefit of at least one of the players to claim it (not doing so would be imperfect play). For this reason, there are no infinite games with perfect play.

I don't think you quite appreciate the complexity.

But larger by how much?

I know it's finite, I just finished saying as much.  Finite doesn't mean manageable though.

Assuming Moore's law will continue indefinitely is a mistake.

Not manageable with any future technology either.  The example above is 10^9, doesn't even register against the Shannon number.

Like I said, I don't think you appreciate the complexity at play here.

Never is a very very long time.

It's not long enough.

There is not enough matter in the universe to even store the information required.  By a numbers of orders of magnitudes.

Even if there was, the logistics of harnessing it all for such a purpose is beyond prohibitive.

I stand by my never.

The game tree complexity of checkers is 10^31, for chess it is 10^123.

By comparison, the known universe is thought to contain somewhere between 10^78 and 10^80 atoms.

Even assuming that were so (and it's not established whether the universe is finite or infinite, by the way), the logistics of harnessing enough matter to statefully capture the problem?

Once in future a computer will say - after calculating millions of years - that the answer is "42".

But will we know what the question was?

You reversed it, which is why it's 42 and not 24.

It's a difference between endless and infinite. The universe is endless, but it seems to be finite. There are 10^248 subatomic parts registrable, but how much are not visible or registrable? Even modern physics don't know the topology of our universe. Gravitation is also a great mysterium, the Higgs-boson only works with velocity. Perhaps once a time human race will solve these problems, but today we can't (like this chess-question).

This question is meaningless.