Chess will never be solved, here's why

Where did I even mention "my many friends"? (my claim, according to btickler)

I would never claim such a thing deliberately. I was talking about many people, probably whom I do not even know, who think exactly the same thing I do about this troll.

I don't even want many friends. Just people I can respect.

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.

Quel idiot.
Passe une bonne journée.

Where did I even mention "my many friends"? (my claim, according to btickler)

I would never claim such a thing deliberately. I was talking about many people, probably whom I do not even know, who think exactly the same thing I do about this troll.

I don't even want many friends. Just people I can respect.

Eh bien, pourquoi n'es-tu pas poli ? Mieux encore, pourquoi vous impliquer sans rien savoir de ce qui se passe et prendre le parti d'un troll ? Je ne crois pas que tu sois un troll. Vous pourriez l'être, mais plus que probablement, vous êtes sincère et égaré. Mieux vaut rester à l'écart des choses que vous ne connaissez pas, peut-être, jusqu'à ce que vous fassiez un effort pour les comprendre.

Your protestations are misplaced because I'm only pointing out what you are. I can't help it if there's more than one troll here. As I pointed out, they coagulate.

++ No, the 99% stems from statistics and probability.

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].

If I'm right then I'm right. I don't even know who you are or where you came from but thankyou for your immensely polite intervention.

Don't make personal attacks.

This thread should be renamed

   "Chess will be solved by Five Correspondence Players, who will Solve it in Five Years, given a                   Sinclair Spectrum Computer and Sufficient Funding for Fish and Chips on Saturdays".

@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.

@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 

That is visibly to everyone NOT reasoning, that is weak inductive evidence. The suggestion that you can firmly conclude 99% perfect play from that is very odd.
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.

Slightly odd terminology, but yes.
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.

Absurd claim. A simple probabalistic analysis finds it is not very unlikely that there are 2 or more such games. There is no reason that, for example, 3 of the draws can't have multiple errors. 

Please feel free to come up with an alternative error distribution even under a different hypothesis.

There you go.