Chess will never be solved, here's why

This is a rip-off of my forum.

And it’s stuck.

On chess.com, we value respect and kindness. Please do not swear, post offensive messages, and apply verbal abuse to your forum contributions. We thank you for helping out on chess.com and being a part of the community, but please do not be rude to anyone.

Thanks.

Je suis poli. Je suis francophone te je traduis mes messages. Désolé si la traduction de "coqs" (Cooks) a été mal traduite. Je ne comprends d'ailleurs pas pourquoi ça été mal traduit ?!

Toujours est-il

I am polite. I am francophone and I translate my messages. Sorry if the translation of "coqs" (Cooks) has been incorrectly translated. I don’t understand why it was poorly translated?!

Still, it must be the longest blog published on chess with its 234 pages!

@4663

"Give an example of a process that is similar to chess"
++ Number of phone calls,
number of radioactive decays,
number of soldiers killed by horses,
number of stars per unit of space,
number of patients arriving,
number of meteorite strikes,
number of photons on a detector,
number of river floods...

"Because each event (error) will affect the probability of the next event"
++ When there is only 0 or 1 event, there is no next event to be affected.

"If chess was a forced win, imagine there is only one line to follow against perfect play to force a win. It would be very unlikely to avoid an error. Black could have an easier task, more lines available to maintain current evaluation, thus lower probability for an error."
++ But some black responses would leave more than only moves. 
Let us assume 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 were a white win and were the only way to win for white. After 1 e4 b5 or 1 e4 f5 white then has more than 1 way to win. 
Likewise after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 a6 or 2...g5 etc. white then has more than 1 way to win. 
So black would also have a series of only moves to force white to play one only move to win.
If chess were a win, a white error would not be more probable than a black error.

"After any given error there could be a 0-99,9% chance for another error"
++ For the ICCF WC Finals there is only 0 or 1 error, there is no other error.
For the 1953 Zürich Candidates there are 59 games with 2 to 5 errors, so the calculation might have < 25% error due to interdependence.

"I'm not gonna bother speculating lines." ++ Fair enough, but the popular lines 1 e4 and 1 d4 are heavily played and have many draws and lines like 1 a4 would defy logic if winning.

"When there is only 0 or 1 event, there is no next event to be affected"

There is no mathematical way to prove these games only had 0-1 errors.

"Number of phone calls, 

number of radioactive decays, 

number of soldiers killed by horses, 

number of stars per unit of space, 

number of patients arriving, 

number of meteorite strikes, 

number of photons on a detector, 

number of river floods..."

And what do these events have in common? One event of phone call will not affect the probability of the next one. In chess all events affect the next one, therefore we can't predict them with poissons distribution. We can't predict errors or calculate their probability, or make any distributions with this system.

I forecast that @tygxc will fail to learn from your observation.

To be precise it is a forum, not a blog, since it is open to contributions rather than being restricted to one or a few authors.

It is quite a long way from being the longest forum: I believe this one is not the longest forum either despite its 2092 pages!

@4670

"There is no mathematical way to prove these games only had 0-1 errors."
++ Yes there is. 30th ICCF WC Finals. Assume a Poisson distribution. Fit a Poisson distribution. Result: 127 games with 0 error, 9 games with 1 error, < 0.4 game with >1 error.

"In chess all events affect the next one"
++ There is no next one in ICCF WC finals. No error =  draw, 1 error = loss.

"we can't predict them with poissons distribution"
++ Let us assume for whatever reason Poisson were not applicable.
Please then come up with an alternative, plausible distribution of errors by whatever means.

With Poisson: the 30th ICCF WC finals: 127 draws with 0 error, 9 decisive games with 1 error (?).
Zürich 1953 Candidates: 74 draws with 0 error, 77 decisive games with 1 error (?), 40 draws with 2 errors (?) that undo each other, 14 decisive games with 3 errors, either 3 lone errors (?), or an error (?) and a blunder (??),  4 draws with 4 errors, either 4 lone errors (?), or an error (?), a blunder (??) and an error (?), 1 decisive game with 5 errors: either 5 lone errors (?), or 3 errors (?) and a blunder (??), or 1 error (?) and 2 blunders (??).

30th ICCF WC Finals:
0 errors: ... games,
1 error:   ... games,
2 errors: ... games,
3 errors: ... games.

Zürich 1953 Candidates:
0 errors: ... games,
1 error:   ... games,
2 errors: ... games,
3 errors: ... games,
4 errors: ... games,
5 errors: ... games,
6 errors: ... games,
7 errors: ... games.

Question.
- how do you get rid of a blog message alert, especially this blog?
Really tired of receiving 10 to 30 alerts a day just for this blog!

Round and round we go.

"Yes there is. 30th ICCF WC Finals. Assume a Poisson distribution. "

Again you're using poisson distribution to calculate this that gives you incorrect results like Ive explained before. It assumes each error after the first one has the same probability, in which case errors >1 would be very rare. In reality each error has a different probability and poisson distribution fails to take this into consideration.

"Let us assume for whatever reason Poisson were not applicable"

It's not just some whatever reason, Ive pointed out exactly why it doesn't apply here.

"Please then come up with an alternative, plausible distribution of errors by whatever means."

It's impossible with the data that we have. I could just put in there 99 errors per game if I so wished.

I think we've come as far as we can with this discussion.

.... ...Round and round we go.
It’s time to notice!!

...and I have found a way to stop receiving from this forum. Phew!

@4675

"Again you're using poisson distribution to calculate this"
++ Well calculate with any other distribution then.
First I calculated with simple high school math.
Critique: I must use Poisson.
I use Poisson.
Critique: you must use some other distribution.
What distribution and what is then the result?
Do not know.
If you do not know what distribution were better, or what the result then would be,
then you cannot tell Poisson is inapplicable or the result of Poisson is wrong.

"that gives you incorrect results" ++ No, that gives correct results

"like Ive explained before" ++ No, you have not explained that.

"It assumes each error after the first one has the same probability"
++ If there is only 1 error like in the 30th ICCF WC, then there is no error after the first one.

"In reality each error has a different probability"
++ In the 30th ICCF WC Finals there is 1 error / game at most.

"Ive pointed out exactly why it doesn't apply here."
++ Incorrectly so: with at most 1 error any interdependence plays no role.

"It's impossible with the data that we have."
It is possible: 127 - 9 - 0.

"I could just put in there 99 errors per game if I so wished."
++ No, that is not consistent with the data.

"I think we've come as far as we can with this discussion."
++ Indeed: the 30th ICCF WC Finals had 127 perfect games with 0 errors.

on and on

If this thread bothers you (and others), look down and to your right and click off the checkmark in the "Follow" box.

This is preferable to just adding white background noise to the thread.

Bored or bothered, whatsoever?

This thread turned into a string of pegs for hangers-on, no?

@tygxc, do you understand that you can't reach certainty with statistics?

Three avoidable errors.

1. There is no excuse for thinking I "think you can reach certainty with statistics", since my previous post says "you can't reach certainty with statistics".
2. It would require you to have suffered catastrophic amnesia to genuinely believe statistics was all I know
3. The fact that we can't presently justify certainty whether 2. Ba6 loses is not based at all on statistics, any more than is the fact that we couldn't justify certainty whether "Fermat's last theorem" was a true proposition before this theorem was finally proved in the 1990s.

It's worth noting the distinction between propositions and meta-propositions here (the latter referring to the status of meta-knowledge, which is knowledge about what is known).

I see your ego has reconstituted to its dysfunctional norm after running away for a week.