Chess will never be solved, here's why

@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.

This argument is going round and round. It's like trying to oversee an asylum.

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.

Yes, I agree.

Now watch some clever-clogs come and tell us we're both wrong, because we're narcissists.

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.  

You are an undoubted troll.

If I can see a mistake made by experts, then I'll point it out if it has a bearing on the conversation. I'm fully aware of your and Elroch's intellectual limitations and also the fact that neither of you goes against authority. There's also a strong tendency for academics to protect each other's backs, against outsiders who can see through their pretensions. Ultimately, they are protecting each other's incomes but the downside is huge when they also also protecting frauds.

Anyone who disagrees and is capable of bringing a good argument to bear wouldn't resort to calling people narcissists, or to engage in the sort of trolling you habitually attempt. 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.

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.

Back to the topic.

Chess is solved.

As I already pointed out, the solution is not dependent on humans and their algorithms, but you tend to blatantly ignore this obvious fact over and over again.

I see some talking, but not a proof of any kind.

well, you are aware of your existence, it that alone doesn't prove it I don't know what else would do it for you?

Or you believe* you doesn't exist?

You are going to have to identify your windmill, Don Quixote.  If you actually want to discuss it, that is...

Did you read mpaetz's post? You agreeing with "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" seems to contradict your claim that 2. Ba6 is 100% a loss

Maybe it's not me you're looking at...do you like Caravaggio?

No it isn't contradictory. I've clearly pointed out that there's a deductive route and an inductive route. My opinion is that the inducive route is sufficient. Yet, if someone believes that it's insufficient and they would prefer to calculate through all the possible lines, that isn't wrong at all, so I wouldn't disagree with it. If, from mpaetz's  point of view, he wants to go by that route, I wouldn't disagree because he is being correct.

In my opinion, it's unnecessary because we can know that such a position is a win, with no possibility of being incorrect.