Chess will never be solved, here's why

@tygxc demonstrates that he uses many tactics.
One of them is that when criticized and thoroughly refuted ...
he then tries to demand an alternative posting - of his design.
Phony authority and phony 'instructions' are well known tactics.

Another tactic of his is - when refuted (almost continuously now for several months - Lol) 
He peppers the forum with several huge posts - even three consecutive ...  maybe even 100 lines -with the idea of 'burying' the refuting and debunking of his ridiculous claims.
The 'bury' tactic.  Also well known.
He may be using Voice Texting. 
The tremendous volume of postings suggests it.
Its like a kind of 'clinic' on Posting Tactics.

#3382

"I said I explained the data, and the draw rate is a datum; the error rate is not. I said that the statistical dependence of errors can be deduced without major assumptions."
++ OK, then deduce without major assumptions and explain yourself the game-theoretic value and the error distribution consistent with 127 draws, 6 white wins, and 3 black wins.
I say: draw, 126 - 9 - 1.

"Scientific reasoning is coherent with external evidence, too."
++ Not even that.
Problem: What volume of natural gas is released by expanding an 1 m³ tank at a pressure of 10 N/mm² to a pressure of 0.1 N/mm²?
Me: 'Apply Boyle's Law. That makes 10 / 0.1 = 100 m³.'
You: 'No, no, Boyle's Law is wrong as it assumes no interactions between molecules. It is well known that - unlike helium - molecules of natural gas interact. You must use the van der Waals equation.'
Me: 'Well, what is then the correct volume?'
You: 'We cannot tell.'

"Systematic errors are due to the difference beween the "subjective" and the "absolute" evaluation, as you call them." ++ The subjective or provisional evaluation is not even static: it changes with additional calculation depth. Even in autoplay the subjective or provisional evaluations differ before or after a move is played due to 1 ply depth difference.

"The subjective evaluations of a move m by two strong engines are strongly correlated"
++ I can agree about that in autoplay. However 2 different entities of humans / engines have uncorrelated subjective evaluations. Even the same engine say Stockfish on the same hardware has uncorrelated subjective or provisional evaluations with different settings. Provisional, subjective evaluations of Stockfish with Tal settings does not correlate to provisional, subjective evaluations of the same Stockfish with Petrosian settings. The TCEC superfinals provide graphs of the provisional, subjective evaluations of both competing engines. They usually correlate when  they head towards draw/draw or win/loss. However in the few games pairs win/draw they largely differ: one engine evaluates it wrong and loses, the other evaluates it right and wins. Not always the same engine is right and wins: they both win a game once in a while.
The main problem is that the engines depend on their provisional, subjective evaluation to decide on 1 move. My proposed method of 4 candidate moves mitigates that. Maybe the subjectively, provisionally top 1 move is not the objectively, absolute best, but then it is the top 2, or top 3, or top 4 move. Even that procedure is not watertight. It may be that all subjectively, provisionally top 4 moves are objectively, absolutely wrong and the subjectively, provisionally top 5 move is objectively, absolutely right. According to my calculations that would only happen once in 10^20 positions. As there are according to my calculations only 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions, such an error has only 0.1% chance of occuring.

"You may be correct, but the numbers are unreliable if the errors are statistically dependent."
++ If you tell me the error distribution is not: draw, 126-9-1,
but: draw, 125-9-2 then I accept that as plausible.
If you tell me it is: win, 0-127-9 then I reject that as not plausible.

Well it took 9 hours for the next 'bury'.  
Slow.

#3384
"with several huge posts - even three consecutive"
++ I am sorry for the inconvenience.
I reply to several posts by different posters with... several posts.
I try to be concise, but reply to several points in huge posts.
I often get criticised for writing too concise and jumping to conclusions.
I often get criticised for ignoring some posts or some points.

"too concise"
Lol   !      'Snake Oil' is concise ??
Hahahhahahaahahh.

Agree, but as already said this difference gets smaller and smaller, on average, as the depth increases.

Exactly, most of the times evaluations do not differ much, hence they are correlated.

I do not follow you. Your model is just in conflict with the evidence that errors cannot be statistically independent.

I would like to tell, but... can you calculate a reliable error rate, when errors are statistically dependent?

#3390
"most of the times evaluations do not differ much, hence they are correlated"
++ When they do not differ, it makes no difference as there are no errors.
The errors occur when they differ: one is wrong.

"Your model is just in conflict with the evidence that errors cannot be statistically independent"
++ What evidence? Assuming statistical independence of different entities makes sense. A slight dependence makes a slight difference.

#3388
"too concise"
++ Too long, people do not read.
Too short, people do not understand.
Some people do not read or understand either way.

And too invalid - people will understand - and reject and refute.

😦 ??

How can there never be an error when two subjective evaluations do not differ? They can be wrong regardless they differ or not. Otherwise, they would be objective.

#3394
"How can there never be an error when two subjective evaluations do not differ?"
++ Look at the TCEC superfinals.
When the two subjective evaluations do not differ, the games have the same result.

#3395
The 7-men endgame table bases is objective. 3-fold repetition is objective. Some endgames like with opposite colored bishops are objectively drawn etc.

Meaning?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 

Idk why i am laughing 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 i am getting so much laugh after seeing this forum 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

#3398
"where there is some discrepancy between the evaluation of engines, it will ALWAYS be possible to find two that agree, even though a third totally disagrees"
++ The TCEC superfinals pits the 2 best engines against each other. The engines are totally different and thus independent. Whenever both agree in their provisional subjective evaluation, the objective final result of the game confirms that both are right. When they differ, one is wrong and the other one wins. Look at the TCEC superfinals: they have graphs of both evaluations and also graphs of the table base hits. 
I have more reason to be annoyed at the nonsensical criticism but I refrain from bluntness.
There are few here who think at all logically. Most not even understand what is trivially obvious.

Subjective. Engines share a great amount of their codes; they base their evaluations on similar "knowledge"; different types of machine learning can give similar results, as Elroch pointed out long ago. It's like saying that we are totally different from cats, while in fact we share 90% of our DNA with them.

You jump to conclusions! Even if the game-theoretic value of the game was a draw, it's equivalent to saying that if you consistently draw with an equally strong opponent and you both agree on your evaluations, you both play perfectly!

Jump to conclusion! If player₁ thinks it's a draw and player₂ thinks "win for me", why it cannot be a win for player₁ instead, that both fail to recognize?

I would say tactics detections and observations of positions are objective (especially if its to be done well).  Got to look.
but calculations comparing carefully prepared sequences of moves leading to and including final move selection ... is subjective.
Has to be.  Some moves cannot be played because only one move at a time is allowed.  'There can only be One!'.   Subjective.

#3403

"Engines share a great amount of their codes" ++ Yes, that is true

"they base their evaluations on similar "knowledge""
++ No, that is not true. AlphaZero bases its evaluations on knowledge it generated itself from no other input but the Laws of Chess by playing 700,000 games against itself. Its chess knowledge is thus logically derived from the Laws of Chess, i.e. axioms in your lingo.

"we are totally different from cats, while in fact we share 90% of our DNA with them."
++ We do not play chess like cats, or like apes, with which we share 99% of DNA.
Identical twins that share 100% of their DNA play chess differently.
Even two identical Stockfish engines, but with different settings play differently.

"If player₁ thinks it's a draw and player₂ thinks "win for me", why it cannot be a win for player₁ instead, that both fail to recognize?"
++ The TCEC superfinals consist of 100 games with 50 imposed openings, intended to be slightly unbalanced. The game-theoretic values of the imposed opening positions can be a draw, a white win, or a black win. They play a mini-match of 2 games with one of the 50 imposed openings. A priori there are several possibilities:
A) One engine wins both games: 2 - 0. That does not happen. It proves that the game-theoretic value of the imposed initial position impacts more than the difference in strength of calculation / evaluation between the engines.
B) One engine wins a game and draws the other: 1.5 - 0.5. That is the desired result of the imposed opening. It shows that the winning engine calculates/evaluates the imposed initial position and the resulting positions better than the other.
C) Each engine wins a game 1 - 1. That shows the imposed opening is too unbalanced.
D) Both games are draws 1 - 1. That shows the imposed opening is not unbalanced enough.
The most interesting occurence is B).
Now we can look at the evaluation graphs of both engines. In case B) we observe there is a difference in evaluation at some point. One side has it right and wins the 2-game minimatch, one side has it wrong and loses the 2-game minimatch. 1.5 - 0.5
For cases C) and D) we observe that the evaluation graphs of both engines agree. That means in case D) the imposed initial position was a draw and in case C) the imposed opening loses by force for one side.
There have been several TCEC superfinals: one per year, each 100 games.
There is a clear correlation between diverging evaluations and 1.5 - 0.5 results and between agreeing evaluations and 1 - 1 results, either win + loss or draw + draw.

'Looking' is objective.  At a chess position.  Lots to see!
But !!
You can only make one move at a time in chess !
Its Subjective !  

There Can Be Only One !!