Chess will never be solved, here's why

All of the above is applicable to you.  The difference is that you cannot be any other way.  I, on the the other hand, am just forcing you to show people who you are by mirroring your behavior back at you (minus the worst stuff that I won't stoop to), which you obligingly stumble into like clockwork.

You didn't stay unblocked for long, did you.

You get the last comment, as usual. Forgive me if I don't reply but I haven't actually read your post even though it's short, because I imagine it will be as pretentious as all the rest of the stuff you write..

     This is supposed to be an open forum where anyone can express their opinion. NervesofButter has a different view of what "the problem" may be. Don't tell others that they shouldn't express a viewpoint that may be different from yours.

You can't discourage me with a win-win scenario .  I will keep pointing out when you jump on other posters or are generally condescending to everyone around you.  Respond, or don't, it doesn't matter.

Paranoia? You're crazy. I told you something, quite politely, which I preferred not to say in public.

Don't feel special, he reaches out to everyone he thinks he can enlist in his crusade.  He really should look up that "Dark Lord" guy from the Niemann threads...that guy is right up his alley .

I suppose, if all else were to fail, you could try to be a comedian. You probably even believe you.

30 minutes flat for you to forget you were pretending you didn't read that post .

The truth is, I've been extremely busy with a venture that's working out well and also wanted to stay away for a couple of days. But I did want to come back just to say what I think of some of you. You know who you are. The ones who never make honest arguments and always pretend they already answered. The old, online trick. The ones who start personal attacks just so someone will answer them back. That's what they live for.

I'm aware that the majority of people here, I don't know. The second majority I like and get on will with. But there are some who never grew up and who treat this as a kids' playground, where they're the bullies. It's ok if someone disagrees with someone else but if there's someone who argues their opinions better, the gang of kids doesn't like that. Those kids just love pretending they are the big men.

They probably even believe it, because that's what happens when people never grow up. Maybe when they've spent their time in an institution which prevents growing up ... maybe the army, maybe a university. They think they're normal and right and good and proper. It's the ones who can function better than them, or at least, differently, who are the kids, with everything reversed. Apparently there's no cure. It's too late for one. From now on, I'll be playing more chess, instead of wasting my time, learning from fools. It's been instructive but probably time to move on.

I didn't. I can quote something and not read it, believe it or not. You're the one who's deluded. Now, goodbye.

Quoting for posterity .

Another of your inane pretentions.
I'll do it too. You can quote this if you like.

Back on topic.
This is the most recent finished ICCF WC game.
It has been established this is > 99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors,
and has < 1 % chance to contain 2 errors that undo each other.
A draw was agreed because of a forced transition to a table base drawn 7 men rook ending.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164280 

Chess can be weakly solved using such a game as backbone.
Look at 3 alternatives for 119 Bd3. Do they draw too?
Look at 3 alternatives for 118 f6. Do they draw too?
Look at 3 alternatrives for 117 Rh1. Do they draw too?
...
Like that all the way down until it comes to some other ICCF WC drawn game.

"It has been established this is > 99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors,

and has < 1 % chance to contain 2 errors that undo each other."

This was established by you using poisson distribution that is not applicable to determine probability of chess errors.

@4708
"This was established by you using poisson distribution that is not applicable to determine probability of chess errors."
++ It is applicable.
Please come up with another plausible distribution of errors per game.
I say: 136 ICCF WC games = 127 draws with 0 error + 9 decisive games with 1 error.
What do you say with whatever distribution you deem more applicable?

Events that unpredictably affect the probability of the next event can't really be reliably distributed like that. The probabilities are unpredictable. We would have to solve chess to be sure.

@4710

"Events that unpredictably affect the probability of the next event can't really be reliably distributed like that."
++ Telephone switching gear and hospital emergency rooms are designed using Poisson.
They should neither be overwhelmed, nor too expensive and idle. During e.g. 9/11 that might have been broken, with phone calls or hospital emergencies stemming from the same event.

Regardless, as calculated for the ICCF WC draws, there is > 99% sure either 0 or 1 error per game, with < 1% probablitity of a drawn game with 2 errors.
If there is > 99% sure only 0 or 1 error, then there is no next event,
so whether the non existent next event depends on the first event or not does not matter. 

"We would have to solve chess to be sure."
++ Now we can say the game @4707 is > 99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors.
With another distribution it may be 99.7% or 99.1% or even 98.4%, whatever.
Thus such ICCF WC drawn games are suitable as a backbone to weakly solve chess with the procedure explained @4707.

Those who claim to know something about statistics and probability should realise that its purpose is to extract good knowledge from bad data. It purpose is not to say we cannot tell. Gauss developed much of it to extract precise information from very blurred astronomical data. He did not say: bad data, I cannot tell.

Chess errors don't follow a poisson distribution. First of all we have no knowledge of when an error actually occurs. It's one possibility that chess is a forced win and the first error has a probability of 99,9% or any other high number, its unknown. The next error could have a probability of 5%. In complex positions where a series of only moves will maintain the current evaluation probability of errors will suddenly increase. If the first error leads to a position where plenty lines force a draw, probability of the next error could go close to 0%. Obviously the probability of these errors don't fit the poisson distribution.

The example you gave of emergency services is a problematic one for poisson distribution and it would not handle well a possibility of mass emergencies where people would call the emergency line all at once. The more there is available data the better it works. With chess we have very little accurate data of when errors occur.

@4712
"Chess errors don't follow a poisson distribution." ++ How do you know that? A Poisson distribution makes sense as in similar problems. Even @Elroch suggested it. Anyway, please then use another distribution you think is more appropriate and then tell how many games with 0, 1, 2... errors there are in the 136 ICCF WC games with 127 draws, 6 white wins and 3 black wins.

"we have no knowledge of when an error actually occurs" ++ We do not need to know that.
The error is usually the last move in an ICCF WC finals decisive game.

"It's one possibility that chess is a forced win"
++ Yes, a priori chess can be a draw, a white win, or a black win.
It is impossible to fit a Poisson distribution where the probability of an odd number of errors is 127/136, so that rules out a white or black win.
It is possible to fit a Poisson distribution where the probability of an odd number of errors is 9/136 with average 0.07 error per game and thus the 127 draws are > 99% sure to contain 0 error and the 9 decisive games are > 99% sure to contain exactly 1 error.

"Obviously the probability of these errors don't fit the poisson distribution."
++ Obviously a Poisson distribution is good here as in many similar problems.
Please show an alternative distribution of errors to explain the 30th ICCF WC finals' results.

I say: chess is a draw, 127 games with 0 error, 9 games with 1 error

You say: chess is a draw / a white win / a black win with:
... games with 0 error, ... games with 1 error, ... games with 2 errors, ... errors with 3 errors.

"How do you know that? A Poisson distribution makes sense as in similar problems."

Because for poisson distribution to make sense, probability of error should stay similar through out the game(s) independently of previous events. This is not the case, because an error will determine the probability for the next error to occur. I explained this in detail many times and particularly in my last comment. In this scenario poisson distribution wont accurately predict probability. We don't know exactly how inaccurate it is because we dont have any data.

"Please show an alternative distribution or errors to explain"

You want me to make a distribution that is basically random because we don't have data available to predict the actual error distribution. Even if we had data it would still be a prediction and the distribution could be anything.

Here you go:

Chess is a win for white (and no, I dont actually believe so but its not ruled out)

120 games with 1 error

9 games with 2 errors

7 games with 3 errors