Chess will never be solved, here's why

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?

Yet you seem to think you can reach certainty with statistics, because that's all you know about and yet you seem sure we can't even know that 2. Ba6 loses.

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).

Nevertheless, your performance here has been so completely myopic and childish that I and others have entirely stopped taking you seriously. I stopped taking the 13 year old seriously, years ago. All he knows is personal attack. However, you have consistently evaded my very well-directed criticisms and it's clear you don't know how to answer them, since your only recourse has been to make personal attacks.

There's no excuse for the things you have written. I would suggest that perhaps your confidence has been bolstered but I would seriously reconsider the credentials of those agreeing with you. I think you're really a small minority which pretends to be a majority, because that's the only way to stay afloat. It would be better to sink and start again. If you actually answered my criticisms in stead of constant evasions, you would learn something. As it is, you will not learn.

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

I've been busy. I believe that you don't understand the meaning of what "ego" was considered, in Freudian terms, to be. You're very, very confident but extremely ignorant of many things and I'd prefer not to be talking to you, because I find, in general, that you have nothing of interest to write. I think the problem is with YOUR ego, in that respect. If there was any real mental content, your posts would reflect it. 

Yep, this is the norm I was referring to.

Please stop being so childish. Other things are happening. The World is a different place today and yet you are sureally the same.

This post is well over a hundred pages late, if you are going to make it.

Yes, it's different.  That's not some ticket to pretend you are.

I already posted my respects, before you posted your own thread on the subject.  Don't bother trying to make today's events about you.

Without people to look down on, you would be completely lost. You'd have no reason to be here. You don't only disgust me so don't pretend it is just me. Somehow you need to grow up.

Nerves of Butter, I'm sorry but this needs to be said. Don't comment if you can't recognise what the problem is.