What is really impossible to understand, if not hypothesizing that you do not understand or you are evasive, is why you address questions other than those raised, or repeat the same things like a spammer:
"you try to impress the occasional reader of this thread using concepts like cloud computing, heuristics, quantum mechanics, complex numbers, etc."
++ No, not at all. [ . . . repetitions . . . ] I have seen a quantum electrodynamical calculation on the probability of absorption of 1, 2, 3... photons using Feynman diagrams. It is in the booklet "QED" by Feynman. I do not have it on my shelf, so I cannot tell you page and line.
And how that should answer the question you were supposed to answer?
Even in your car crashes analogy: every insurance company will tell you they settle more minor damages than they settle total losses.
That's an answer to a different question.
Let us do some simple high school math
Let D represent the rate of decisive games
Let E represent the error rate per game
D = E + E³ + E^5 + E^7 + ... = E / (1 - E²)
Hence
[ . . . ]
I told you such behaviour is just insulting. You repeat things exactly the same as if we were stupid, or we could just get convinced through repetition. If you want to reference things for newcomers, instead, you can just make a link. As @btickler already explained preceding me, your calculations would be correct if your premises were correct. We know the geometric series, don't worry. I asked you to prove those premises, though, starting from the question on the probabilities.
So the data show, that 99% of ICCF WC draws are ideal games with optimal moves that thus are part of the weak solution of chess.
Another just offensive repetition. We already contested your conclusions. If you want you can raise questions about those objections, as we do with yours.
"We have not strongly solved chess, so the only positions we know are wins or draws, are those which can be calculated to the checkmate or to the endgame tablebase"
++ I also consider chess ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position to be a draw. Any other would contradict the observed data.
You are just dismissing my objection to that, with no counter-objection.
Also positions with a forced 3-fold repetition are known draws, e.g. perpetual checks.
This commonly happens in ICCF WC games, more than table base draws.
Ok, also 3-fold repetitions other than checkmate. That does not change the main point.
"thus it is obvious that if they get a won position they play it optimally, because we know that position is won by analysis and tablebases"
++ Once they reach the table base draw, they stop playing and just claim the draw.
You talked about a won position, and now you talk about a draw, but you didn't address my whole objection.
"that doesn't mean they play all the other positions with few errors"
++ No, but the low error rate results from the low draw rate.
In an ICCF WC the error rate E = 0.10: 1 error in 10 games.
Another repetition. It's based on your not proven premises; see above.
"you cannot start with the assumption that the probability of a blunder is "very, very" low"
++ No, I do not start with that assumption, I derive it from the data.
In the ICCF WC games E² = 0.01: 2 errors in 1 of 100 games.
Based on assumed premises. Do you see that you simply avoid issues? I repeat my whole objection here, only because you just dismembered it, without countering it:
We have not strongly solved chess, so the only positions we know are wins or draws, are those which can be calculated to the checkmate or to the endgame tablebase (or to a 3-fold repetition, a 50 move rule hit, ok), thus it is obvious that if they get a won position they play it optimally, because we know that position is won by analysis and tablebases; that doesn't mean they play all the other positions with few errors. Therefore, you cannot start with the assumption that the probability of a blunder is "very, very" low.
"Stop jumping to conclusions"
++ That is how science works: deduction and induction. E.g. [ . . . ] Newton derived his laws of motion and of gravity from Kepler's laws. He invented the calculus he needed for that.
Yes, Holmes, and dog's and cat's brains work like that too, but the problem is your inductions are faulty generalizations IMO, and your deductions not rigorous enough to be scientific, and we explained you why. Instead of objecting our objections, you just repeat your points. That for sure is not how science work.
BTW, Newton did not derive his laws of motion and gravity from Kepler's laws and specifying the rest has no relevance, you are just bragging 
.
A job is being done here of showing various ways chess will Not be solved.
Neither strongly nor 'weakly'.
'Weak' solving has to be 'strong' enough.
For now the weak ways are too weak.
And that's being dissected and isolated and displayed here.