I said that (a) chess is a draw and (b) 126 games with 0 errors, 9 games with 1 error and 1 game with 2 errors are the only way to explain the data: 127 draws, 6 white wins, 3 black wins.
You only say: "it's impossible to say before a weak solution has been determined"
So you dodge the question and implicitly acknowledge the correctness of my claims.
No, I said that it's impossible to establish the number of errors per game from the fact that most of them, at high level, are draws. Read my previous post.
I say no other explanation is possible. If you dispute that, then come up with an explanation:
Are you kidding me? from post(1): "the increasing draw rate in games between engines of the same strength, and in particular in autoplay, can be explained with the increasing stability of the evaluation functions, both because of the introduction of neural networks, and because the evaluations become (on average) more stable with depth. For this reasons it becomes more and more difficult to overcome an opponent of the same strength, but that does not mean that the game value is a draw. I think that if the increasing drawing rate depended on the game-theoretic value, we should not see the playing strength and ratings of the top engines increase at the current rate."
My explanation is independent from the game-theoretic value and the number of errors per game, errors which obviously will be known only after a weak solution, as you yourself admitted in another post(8):
"The real "accuracy" (not that computed by engines or by you) will be known (i.e. by proof) only after the solution."
++ Yes, that is true. It will all be known after it is done.
I think there is no basis even for an estimation.
"we do not to appeal to authorities" ++ No, but when one of the world leading analysts said something about chess analysis, then people should at least consider it instead of dismissing it on no grounds at all.
I did not dismiss what Sveshnikov said on "solving" chess. Indeed, I have probably considered it even too much. It's you, who dismiss what all the others (experts or not) say about the topic.
The thing is really that chess is a game, meant to be enjoyed. It isn't a sport, where people want to achieve the best result at the expense of enjoyment. That's the first bit of bad thinking that leads people down the wrong path. You don't enjoy chess by learning the safest drawing line against all openings.
So white has an initiative from the start and very often, black wants to play to win, from the start. And mistakes are made and black loses. Nothing forced about losing. It's just that every person who has argued that chess is a win for one side or the other hasn't seriously and accurately thought about it. They don't understand or haven't thought about the psychology.