> It is sufficient though. All chess game ends in a finite number of moves.

Again, the issue is the size of that number, not that it is finite.

> You are missing the complexity collapse which can occur in games, like for example the game of Nim

All you have is ad hominems ... "you don't understand", "you are missing" ...

I'm not missing the intellectual dishonesty of obviously irrelevant examples like Nim, Rubik's cube, or cryptanalysis that have clear mathematical regularities completely lacking from chess.

Now stop insulting me and my intelligence. Again, if you want to go implement this, or write a journal paper, then have at it. But this "we" should have solved chess already, and "we" should be aiming to solve chess, but "we" are not even trying is arrogant trolling.

Over and out.