Chess will never be solved, here's why

Not for you, it isn't.  You cannot ascertain the objective truth of the matter, and cannot claim to know when a valid game state change has occurred except in the simplest cases (those reachable by 100% exhaustive brute force calculation), so your evaluations are by force subjective.

@4539
"Not for you, it isn't." ++ You still do not understand.

"You cannot ascertain the objective truth of the matter"
++ Yes, I can. If a game ends in a win, then the objective truth of the matter at the end is a win.
If a game ends in a draw, then the objective truth of the matter at the end is a draw.

"cannot claim to know when a valid game state change has occurred" ++ I do not claim when the game state has changed, I only calculate how many times the game states have changed.
Kochemasov did not change the game state once in the 30th ICCF WC Finals.
In all 9 decisive games the game state changed exactly once.

"your evaluations are by force subjective." ++ I make no evaluations, I only calculate the number of errors based on the tournament result and draw conclusions from that.

This statement:

"I only calculate how many times the game states have changed."

...is BS.  You do not calculate how many times the game states have changed because neither you, nor Sveshnikov, nor any engine on the planet know how many times a given game has *actually* gone from a win with best play to a draw with best play or vice versa objectively.  Nor do you know the actual number of errors or their importance/severity.  If chess is win for white (or black), then there are drawing errors, and losing errors. 

@4541

"You do not calculate how many times the game states have changed"
++ I do and I use statistics and probability to calculate it.
If you are unable to understand that, I do not blame you, but at least read what I write.

"how many times a given game has *actually* gone from a win with best play to a draw with best play or vice versa objectively."
++ Assuming chess a draw, in every given decided game the game has gone an odd number of times from a draw to a loss or vice versa.
From the tournament result using statistics and probability I calculate how many times all the games together have gone from draw to loss or vice versa.

"Nor do you know the actual number of errors"
++ I do know that from statistical and probability calculation.

"or their importance/severity" ++ There are only errors (?) that change the game state from draw to loss or vice versa and blunders or double errors (??) that change the game state from win to loss. There is no other importance or severity.

"If chess is win for white (or black), then there are drawing errors, and losing errors."
++ Yes, if chess were a win for black, then there are errors (?) that change the game state from a black win to a draw, as well as blunders or double errors (??) that change the game state from a black win to a white win.

I don't need your approval of an obvious statement .

@4511
"In the former case, there is surely a better model that takes into account empirical dependence of errors on game length"
The 9 decisive games in the 30th ICCF WC finals ended in
34, 35, 39, 42, 43, 58, 66, 74, and 77 moves, i.e. average 52 with standard deviation 17.
In human games more errors occur in long games, because of fatigue and time trouble.
In correspondence games more errors occur early, because then they play 16 games simultaneously plus some unfinished from previous tournaments. Fatigue or time trouble play no role.

At first, I didn’t understand much about the discussions in this blog. Afterwards, and by reading a few pages of the blog, I started to study and slightly understand this discussion. Now I hope to understand a little more!
All this to tell you that you express yourself on the ideal of chess and compared to players all ranked at well over 2500 points, that is to say to players who do not make any more mistakes. I, who only have a little more than 1100 points I see reality, my reality of chess, from a completely different angle, even if theoretically I would beat, according to the ranking of Chess.com, more than 81% of the players on this site. My reality is to beat the opponent, not necessarily by playing the best chess game at 100%, but by being cunning and in knowledge because I know that my opponent has for example "only" 1250 points. I can feint it with a sequel that he probably does not know and win ten or even twenty moves compared to a "perfect" game that would take more than 100 moves. I could never do this sequel against a player over 1800 points, but against him, I try. My final score will then be maybe 75- 80% with 2 to 4 great shots. This is very useful in my case because I would not finish the game by winning in time if I had to do it in more than 70 or 80 moves. And in the end, the goal is achieved.
So understand that the subject of the perfect game is dependent on the level of the players who compete against it. The more beginners they are, the more they can make a falsely "perfect" and fast game by making a few mistakes, but by being smart and getting not necessarily terrible percentages. It all comes down to the level of the players who compete. In the end, the winner will have done a rather imperfect part (between 60 and 75% positive), but fast and decisive.
In the end, everything is relative. Is it better for a player with 1100 points, not very fast, to play games with the perfect movements, but not to finish it and therefore to waste time in the game, rather than to play with imperfect movements, but subtle in comparison to an opponent more imperfect than him, and end up in time and with a victory?
What do you think?
Yours truly

In this forum "perfection" is play that could not be faulted by any player, even one stronger than any player that currently exists. I hope that helps.

What I think is that the statement "who do not make any more mistakes" is untrue for every human and engine in the history of chess.  That's why this discussion is fruitless and will remain so.  The reality will not change.  Chess is not solved, and cannot be claimed to be forced draw. 

Everything Tygxc is touting is based on imperfect play, imperfect valuations, and statistics/data that are compromised.  Math equations are meaningless if your variables/definitions are just not valid.  There's not a proof to be had in any of it.  Garbage in, garbage out.

@4547

"The communication itself is working" ++ Then your understanding is lacking.

"The product of a probability and any other value that is not a certainty...is another probability, not a certainty." ++ That is why I said with > 99% certainty.

"It's not a "double error", there aren't two of them"
++ 1 error (?) on move 30 that changes a win to a draw and 1 error (?) on move 31 that changes the draw to a loss is the same as 1 blunder = double error (??) on move 30 that changes a win to a loss. Drinking 1 double whisky is the same as drinking 2 whiskies.

"you are assuming chess is a draw"
++ No, a priori I do not even assume that.
A priori there are 3 possibilities: chess either being a draw, a white win or a black win.
If chess is a white or black win, then each drawn game has an odd number of errors: 1, 3, 5, 7... Thereby a blunder or double error (??) counts for 2 errors (?).
Then try to fit a Poisson distribution that matches the tournament result. It is impossible. So chess is a draw.
Then assume chess is a draw. Try to fit a Poisson distribution that matches the tournament result. It is possible. So chess is a draw and we know how many games have 0, 1, 2,  3,  4, 5, 6, 7... errors, a blunder or double error (??) counting for 2 errors (?).

For the Zürich 1953 tournament the calculation shows 1 game with 5 errors.
We do not know which game, but it is a decisive game, no draw, probably one of Stahlberg.
We do not know which moves are the 5 errors.
It may be a white error (?), a black error (?), a white error (?), a black error (?), and a white error (?) with black winning.
It may also be a black error (?), a white blunder (??), and a black blunder (??) with white winning.

The weakness of arguments based on the statistics of draws is made clear by the fact that there are past world championship conflicts between player 600-700 points weaker than current top engines that have a similar proportion of draws. @tygxc would conclude those players were making scarcely any errors but we would expect those players to be routed by a current top engine.

We obviously cannot exclude the possibility that this remains true at current strengths based on the frequency of draws - the draws may be the result of the engines being too weak to crush the opposition.

You are incorrect.  Drinking a double whisky is not the same as drinking two whiskies with elapsed time between them.  Two separate chess moves would be two separate errors, by definition.  It seems that you will go to any length no matter how far fetched in order to keep pretending...

Sveshnikov is dead wrong, both figuratively and literally.

@4553

"there are past world championship conflicts between player 600-700 points weaker than current top engines that have a similar proportion of draws."
++ Which one do you mean?
Anyway I prefer statistics on a tournament over a match for 2 reasons.
First statistics need a large number of games like 136 for ICCF WC, or 210 for the Zürich 1953 Candidates'.
Second it is possible for a match with 2 players to have interdependent mistakes,
e.g. 1 e4 e5 2 f4? d6?. White errs, black errs back and they may play several games like that.
In ICCF 17 different entities ICCF (grand)master + engines compete
and in Zürich 1953 15 different players from different countries, thus different biases.

"the draws may be the result of the engines being too weak to crush the opposition."
++ That is speculation. The data say otherwise.
AlphaZero is weaker at 1 s / move than at 1 min / move, but 5.6 times less decisive games.
The difference between a strong engine and a weak engine is not in the 'crushing',
it is that the strong engine makes even less errors.

@4554

"Two separate chess moves would be two separate errors."
++ And one blunder (??) is a double error (?).

Sveshnikov is dead wrong. ++ No, he was right, and it will show some time.
Facts & figures support what he prophecised.

i really dont know if u guys just got so much time to discuss or what

coming up with arguments like this just to prove ur point feel useless to me

     The argument goes in circles because these circles are built into the original question. The only way to answer the question definitively is to come up with a foolproof evaluation method. The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines from that point in the game to the finish--either checkmate or a draw. If we possessed such a mechanism, chess would already be solved.

Trying to cleave unto a reasonable poster to look better by association doesn't pan out here.  You're still the one who summarily dismisses all definitions/expertise in favor of your meandering sojourns into your own head.  

I was not one of the people that called you a narcissist, though you display all the signs and I could easily do so ...

"Now get lost and also try to cut out the pretentious verbiage. It doesn't fool anyone any more. There was a time when it did."

Translation:  "You're smart, but I don't like you, and I want everyone to feel like I do, so I will say that they all don't like you as well"

Your fault here lies in the notion that people that agree are somehow less capable than those who go their own way.  This is *sometimes* true, and mavericks go against the grain and introduce something new.  This is *also* a position that many people who are habitually wrong take on, to protect themselves from seeing that truth.  I'll let you keep pretending you are the former.

My posts was in response to your trolling.  Note how the second sentence is entirely unnecessary...unless one is trolling.