Chess will never be solved, here's why

Ignoring the last bit of irrelevant nonsense, that is correct.  What @tygxc is trying to do is "strengthen his opinion". He wants a team of GMs and a few million dollars worth of computational resources to do so.

The problem is equating this with the rigorous solution of the game, like for checkers, connect4 and so on. It just ain't the same.

And here he is again, adding the Fallacy of Excessive Extrapolation and  the Fallacy of Appeal to Inappropriate Authority to the Fallacy of Appeal to Probability to come to the conclusion that chess is a draw. The most that is permissible is to say chess is probably a draw. 

And of course the purpose of the use of this fallacy is to use the "fact" that chess is a draw for further invalid reasoning.

Try to learn something @tygxc, unless you are beyond the stage of life where it is possible to make new neural connections.

I dont know if anyone have mentioned it, but is there a possibility it is a forced win for black aswell? Like in a zugzwang or something. Just a random thought that crossed my mind

The sober answer is that this is not disproven, so should be given at least a tiny bit of credence. It might seem unlikely, but there is no known proof that it is not so.

@5608
"come to the conclusion that chess is a draw"
++ I gave not one but 6 arguments. At least taken together this evidence
compells the mind to accept the fact that chess is a draw as true.
Argument 5 needs understanding of probability.
Argument 6 is deductive.

@5609
"is there a possibility it is a forced win for black aswell? Like in a zugzwang or something."
++ No. Argument 5 takes that possibility into account, it is impossible to explain in a consistent way the data with the assumption that chess were a win for white or black.

It runs contrary to the observation that the initiative i.e.
+1 tempo in the initial position forms some kind of advantage, albeit insufficient to win.

It would also lead to contradictions by strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a win for black, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a white win.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win,
then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win.

Correction. It compels your mind. Not mine or that of anyone precise.

This is because you do not understand that 6 unreliable arguments don't add up to 1 reliable argument. [They add up to greater confidence, not infinitely greater].

The fact that you think a tiny sample of games by imperfect players leads to a deduction that chess is a draw shows you don't know what deduction is.

Gli scacchi sono una palestra di compassione. Io non so esprimere la frustrazione che provo quando perdo la regina o la partita per una svista (ma non abbandono MAI), mi sento umiliato, immagino l'altro che ride di me. Quando invece la perde il mio avversario mi sento magnanimo e sportivo. Ma non è vero. Fino a che provo quella sofferenza significa che sotto sotto vincere mi dà un grande piacere prevaricatorio. Quando sarò in grado di vincere senza godere... Sarò in grado di perdere senza soffrire. È lo sport. Dove accade troppo spesso che l'amore per il gioco cede il passo al desiderio di battere l'avversario.

@5613

"They add up to greater confidence"
++ Death sentences have been based on 99% probability of matching DNA samples.

"a tiny sample of games" ++ Over 1000 ICCF WC Finals draws.

"by imperfect players" ++ The argument shows > 99% of the ICCF WC draws to be perfect play

 "leads to a deduction that chess is a draw" ++ It is the only way to explain the observed data

"what deduction is" ++ The deductive argument is argument 6.

@5592

++ The good assistants only occasionally intervene and only if they are sure.

Isn't it possible to be sure and wrong at the same time?

Even if your evidence compels my mind to accept that chess is a draw.....is this what you believe "solvable" means...... convincing by compelling evidence?  To me, solving chess means 100%, not >99%.  There is a huge difference between those two, even if 99% is enough for most things. I feel pretty good if there's a 99% chance I'll survive my surgery, but it's far from being sure. But solving chess (or checkers) means removing the last scintilla of doubt....at least that's what it means to me....that we're no longer dealing in probabilities or statistics, but that we have a move for EVERY possible position that would guarantee a path to a draw.....with 100% certainty.....not >99%. 

@5616
"Isn't it possible to be sure and wrong at the same time?"
++ That is why the assistants need to be good.
That is why they need to be (ICCF) (grand)masters.
If they are not 100% sure that they are not wrong, then they should let the engine analyse on.

Almost all others.

We need a tygxc-normal dictionary.

Some entries:

know...guess

solve....guess

perfect player...Stockfish

perfect play...draw a winning KPvK position

legal position....position in KRPP v KRP

illegal position....legal position with ply count > 0

calculation...method for arriving at ludicrous figures

order of magnitude...add 10 (or subtract if you think no one will notice)

proof...what I tell you three times

blasphemy...verification of calculation (see above)

inspection ..... three GMs with umbrellas raised, staring into a goldfish bowl and wondering where the fish went. (courtesy @Optimissed.)

right...wrong (courtesy @tygxc)

deduction...first daft thing that springs into @tygxc's head. (courtesy @Optimissed.)

Uturn...carry on in the wrong direction in the face of all evidence (courtesy of @NervesofButter)

... further entries invited.

@5620
"Even if your evidence compels my mind to accept that chess is a draw.....
is this what you believe "solvable" means...... convincing by compelling evidence?"
++ 'ultra-weakly solved means
that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined'
determine = to fix conclusively or authoritatively - Webster
To me Chess is ultra-weakly solved to be a draw, 100% sure though not yet formally proven.

'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
This thus means to determine how black can draw against any tries by white to win.
The best strategy so far is to follow an ICCF WC Finals drawn game as long as possible.

"To me, solving chess means 100%, not >99%."
++ Do not confuse the weak solution of Chess and arguments about it.

We have 1469 ICCF WC Finals games, 1177 of which are draws and 1104 of which are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. We do not know which of the 1177 are the 1104 perfect games and which 73 contain 2 errors that undo each other, mostly from earlier years.

"solving chess (or checkers) means removing the last scintilla of doubt"
++ Checkers was solved with only 19 of the 300 possible openings.
Connect Four was solved with only 9 knowledge rules.

"we're no longer dealing in probabilities or statistics"
++ Weakly solving Chess is determining how to draw as black.
The statistics are only used in arguments about it e.g. to show that for 32 to 7 men the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves if the billion positions/s engine runs for 17 s (or a desktop runs for 4.7 h) with 1 error in 10^20 positions > the number of 10^17 relevant positions.

"that we have a move for EVERY possible position that would guarantee a path to a draw"
++ Yes. That path can be a series of moves, but also a more general strategy.
E.g. after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? it is 100% sure that white loses (it is checkmate in 82),
but we do not need a whole tree to prove that.
A more general strategy: trade pieces, create a passed pawn, queen it, checkmate is enough.

My mother always used to tell me, "six wrongs don't make a right".

@5628
"six wrongs don't make a right"
++ But six rights leave no doubt.

Funny you should mention that.

No show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

Once you've done that we can stop discussing your proposal.

It doesn't work.

You don't have to wait for my KRPPvKRP runs. Your calculation should work for any material.

These responses are less than compelling to my mind.  Relying on humans to be "good" just doesn't seem to fit with what you're trying to prove. 

"Little doubt".....sure.   "No doubt"......troublesome.