Chess will never be solved, here's why

@4523

"you cannot determine what is actually an "error" with certainty."
++ An error (?) is a move that changes the game state from draw to loss, or from win to draw.
A blunder or double error (??) changes the game state from won to lost.

"You are using engine evaluations of errors to evaluate the absolute accuracy of engines."
++ No, I am not using engine evaluations at all. I am using statistics and probability on a sufficiently large tournament of sufficient level. Is this so hard to understand?

@4524
"It is relevant because it is available information that definitely affects the rate of errors.
Weaker players make more errors. Players playing against stronger players make more errors (because stronger players are so because they provide more opportunities for the opponent to make errors). The only question is how relevant it is."
++ All of that is true, but not relevant.
At Zürich 1953 they played at 1 error per game, Smyslov less and Stahlberg more.
In the 30th ICCF WC Final Kochemasov played 16 error-free games, and Stephan made 3 errors.
Relevant is that only chess being a draw is consistent with the observed data and
that in Zürich 1953 74 error-free games were played and in the 30th ICCF WC Final 127.

"an absolute proclamation about this without any quantitative reasoning."
++ I am the only one here to present quantitative reasoning.
Others make absolute proclamations without any reasoning, quantitative or qualitative, at all.

@4534
"you cannot claim that something changes the "game state" when you are trying to prove said game state evaluation is correct in the first place"
++ You still do not understand.
I need no game state evaluation.
If chess were a white or a black win,
then every draw would contain an odd number of errors that change the game state.
If chess is a draw,
then every decisive game contains an odd number of errors that change the game state.
With only that I apply statistics to a sufficiently large tournament of sufficient level.

@4535
"You don't know how many errors were in any of those games."
++ Yes, I know that from statistics and probability.

I know with > 99% certainty that Kochemasov made no error in the 30th ICCF WC Finals.
I know with > 99% certainty that all 9 decisive games contain exactly 1 error.
I cannot tell which move was the error, though it usually is the last move.

I know there were 74 games with no errors, 77 with 1 error, 40 with 2 errors, 14 with 3 errors, 4 with 4 errors and 1 with 5 errors in Zürich 1953, but I cannot tell which moves in which games.
I know they made on average 1 error / game, Smyslov less and Stahlberg more.

"You only know that various moves have been evaluated as suboptimal play, by suboptimal evaluations." ++ No, I use statistics and probability only, no evaluations.

@4573
"Your "errors *are* evaluations."
++ No, an error is a move that changes the game state.
I do not pinpoint the errors, I just calculate how many there are from the tournament result.

"Subjective evaluations."
No, changing the game state is objective. A draw, a win, a loss are objective.
Assuming chess a draw, each decisive game contains an odd number of errors.

@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.

I'm afraid that your arguments are mutually contradictory.

It's for the following reasons. You often remark that inductive reasoning doesn't give a guarantee of accuracy and therefore you would not assign a probability of unity to its product.

I am entirely consistent in that (with the only exceptions being where the uncertainty has vanished because the evidence has made alternatives logically impossible (deductive reasoning is a special case of Bayesian reasoning).
However, guesswork isn't pure chance.

"Guesswork" is not a term with a formal meaning. It is rather a casual term for conclusions without rigour.

@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.

I read what you wrote.  The communication itself is working...it's your premise that is faulty, and your incessant repetition of those faults that is damning of your position.

"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.

The product of a probability and any other value that is not a certainty...is another probability, not a certainty.  

"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.

Thanks for agreeing with me in the end.  You previously stated that all errors are effectively the same.  It's not a "double error", there aren't two of them...it's a more severe error, ergo, all errors are not equal.  You consider all errors equal because you are assuming chess is a draw.

"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.

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.

On the contrary, such players would be crushed by engines with ratings of 3400, so they can make many errors (just not as many as you and me!)

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

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