Chess will never be solved, here's why

could have seen 100+chess videos

could have read 5 novels

could have finished 30 t20 matches in cricket

This thread must never end.  Here's why ...

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.

First you compare your theory to Einstein's to explain why nobody thought of it before, then you compare it to elementary problems everyone can solve, to make objections appear overly complicated. It's convenient, but not much coherent.

Scientific reasoning is coherent with external evidence, too. Your reasoning is just coherent in itself. Systematic errors are due to the difference beween the "subjective" and the "absolute" evaluation, as you call them. The subjective evaluations of a move m by two strong engines are strongly correlated, and the ability to exploit an error is correlated with the evaluation too. So player₁'s systematic errors cannot be uncorrelated with player₂'s systematic errors. I explained that in more detail previously.

I did not mean your theory is just like "dark matter is chocolate". I meant that we are not forced to refute a theory by providing alternatives. If we don't do that, the theory is not necessarily good. We can prove it is not good in other ways. Nonetheless I apologize, because I stated that, in a way that could be easily misinterpreted. "The room story is silly" is just an "appeal to the stone", however.

You may be correct, but the numbers are unreliable if the errors are statistically dependent.

     It will end only when chess is solved.

@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.

No such thing as objective, objectively speaking.

#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?