Chess will never be solved, here's why

Excuse me, guys, and especially "Optimized" which has been hogging the subject for over 217 pages, but you’re blowing us away. " Optimized", you who says: I don’t want many friends, just people I can respect", then respect others and stop naming other players who don’t think like you of troll or psychopath.
Have a good day.

I think most players who make remarks to you are right.
You pretend to want respect and as soon as the message doesn’t suit you, you call them either trolls, psychopaths or idiots.
You should seriously reconsider and above all stay polite.
Have a good day

"I was talking about many people, probably whom I do not even know"

"...who think exactly the same thing I do"

"many people, whom I do not even know"

"...who think exactly the same thing I do"

"whom I do not even know"

"...who think exactly the same thing I do"

Surreal.

Of course you do ...

I’m sorry for you," but I was polite.
All I did was use phrases you used in your messages and I took no sides.
All I can see is that you don’t accept any remarks.
... and I come in whenever I want to, especially since it’s 220 pages long.
It is not you who will (yet) dictate who can enter into a discussion!
Have a good evening

There’s no point in continuing the conversation with you.
You’ll always be right and you can’t see beyond the tip of your nose.
I will not take any more discussion on this page and I wish good courage to all the other people who would still dare to post messages that you would obviously consider as coming from ...  troll or idiots !!!

Splendid.

Do provide your reasoning, since you have inadvertently omitted it so far.

[Also, thanks for posting about the ICCF rules. On seeing it I realised I had forgotten to post after I read them myself, although of course my post about hope in hopeless positions was black humour].

Coming from you, shouldn't that read "don't make personal attacks, you idiot, dimwit x2, dullard psycho?"

I'm being nice and only using the the most direct namecalling/insults you've done in the past...3 days on one thread.

I can supply the hardware.

@4398
"Do provide your reasoning, since you have inadvertently omitted it so far."
++ I provided my reasoning before.
30th ICCF World championship 136 games = 127 draws, 6 white wins, 3 black wins.
https://iccf.com/event?id=66745 
Now there are 3 hypotheses: D) chess is a draw, W) chess is a white win, L) chess is a black win.
Define an error (?) as a move that changes the game state from a draw to a loss or from a win back to a draw. Define a blunder or double error (??) as a move that changes the game state from a win to a loss.
Under D) it means 127 games with an even number of errors and 9 games with an odd number of errors.
Under W) it means 6 games with an even number of errors, 127 games with an odd number of errors and 3 games with an even number of errors at least 2
Under L) it means 3 games with an even number of errors, 127 games with an odd number of errors and 6 games with an even number of errors at least 2.
The only consistent explanation is that D) is true and the distribution of errors is:
126 draws with 0 error, 9 decisive games with 1 error, 1 draw with 2 errors.
Please feel free to come up with an alternative error distribution even under a different hypothesis.

good point

Explain this further. I'm missing the part where you point out why for example this theoretical outcome couldn't be the case, and only D) is consistent.

W) it means 6 games with an even number of errors, 127 games with an odd number of errors and 3 games with an even number of errors at least 2

Here is an interesting stat. Early in TCEC, Houdini and Rybka 4 were within about 30 points of 3100 (on opposite sides) and had 23 drawn games out of 40 (5 games lost by Houdini and 12 lost by Rybka -  a 58.75% score). Surely lots of perfect games?

The current strongest engine is almost 400 points stronger, enough to get  92% score, showing those weak engines from the past would blunder in almost every game.

I wonder how bad today's engines are? Who would have said Houdini was that lousy at the time?

If perfect games exist, why isn't every game perfect?

Is it because of bad luck or is it because the player who played the perfect game is so bad they forgot how to do it?

me just wondering what will fools arguing on the thread getting by posting lakhs of passages to someone who will not listen?

@4399
"If perfect games exist, why isn't every game perfect?"
++ Because of human errors.
Even in correspondence humans sometimes forget one move and err as a consequence.

@4398

"Here is an interesting stat. Early in TCEC, Houdini and Rybka 4 were within about 30 points of 3100 (on opposite sides) and had 23 drawn games out of 40 (5 games lost by Houdini and 12 lost by Rybka -  a 58.75% score). Surely lots of perfect games?"

++ Nowadays in TCEC they impose slightly unbalanced openings to avoid all draws. I do not know if that was the case then.
On to your question: D = 17 / 40
E = Sqrt (1 + (1/(2*D))^2) - 1/(2*D) = 0.3675
Perfect games: 17,
games with 1 error: 15,
games with 2 errors: 5,
games with 3 errors: 2,
games with 4 errors: 1 

@4405
"And computer errors. (Only tablebases are perfect)"
++ Yes, that is right, but with more time computers approach perfection.

@4398

"Explain this further. I'm missing the part where you point out why for example this theoretical outcome couldn't be the case, and only D) is consistent.
W) it means 6 games with an even number of errors, 127 games with an odd number of errors and 3 games with an even number of errors at least 2"
++ Let us assume W): chess is a white win and try to explain the observed 127 draws, 6 white wins, 3 black wins. At first sight you could think:
6 games with 0 error,
127 games with 1 error,
3 games with 2 errors.
However, that is not plausible.
How could there be so many games with 2 errors and so few with 0 or 3 errors?