Chess will never be solved, here's why

@4714

"I explained this in detail many times and particularly in my last comment." ++ I also explained in detail many times that if there is at most 1 error then interdependence of errors plays no role.

"poisson distribution wont accurately predict probability" ++ It does not even have to be accurately: approximately is good enough. If it is 99.7% or 99.4% or 98.5% sure that there are 127 games with 0 error and 9 with 1 error does not matter.

"We don't know exactly how inaccurate it is because we dont have any data."
++ We have data. We have a dozen ICCF WC finals with 136 games each.

"we don't have data available to predict the actual error distribution" ++ We have data.

"the distribution could be anything" ++ Not anything, it must be consistent with data.

"Chess is a win for white (and no, I dont actually believe so but its not ruled out)"
++ If you do not believe so, then why do you propose so. OK let us assume chess is a white win.

"120 games with 1 error" ++ 120 draws with 1 error (?) from white win to draw

9 games with 2 errors ++ 6 white wins with 2 errors (?), (?) that undo each other and 3 black wins with a white blunder (??) 

7 games with 3 errors ++ 7 more draws.

"I also explained in detail many times that if there is at most 1 error then interdependence of errors plays no role"

Problem is as follows: I explain why poisson distribution isn't accurate here to predict errors (and it could be a huge margin) and you proceed to use calculations made using poisson distribution to show how many errors per game there are.

"We have data. We have a dozen ICCF WC finals with 136 games each"

Amount of wins and draws is not enough to determine error probability because the errors don't follow poisson distribution. We are in the dark.

"If you do not believe so, then why do you propose so."

Because when we can't rule it out we have to consider it as an option even if its unlikely.

@4716

"Problem is as follows: I explain why poisson distribution isn't accurate here to predict errors"
++ It need not even be accurate, approximate is enough.

"it could be a huge margin" ++ That is for you to prove. It is a plausible distribution.
It is used for many similar problems. It can be slightly off, but not by a huge margin.

"using poisson distribution to show how many errors per game there are"
++ That is what is done in many sciences.
Example:
A voltage V accelerates an electron with charge e and mass m, what velocity v does it reach?
Answer:
Assume that v << c speed of light.
Thus Newtonian mechanics applies
thus mv² / 2 = eV
thus v = sqrt (2V e / m)
Now check
if v << c then that calculation is valid, else relativistic calculation is needed.

"Amount of wins and draws is not enough to determine error probability because the errors don't follow poisson distribution." ++ Poisson is a plausible distribution, it cannot be far off.

"We are in the dark." ++ We are in the light, but you make it dark.

"Because when we can't rule it out we have to consider it as an option even if its unlikely."
++ I did consider a white win or a black win as options, found them incompatible with the observed data, and also incompatible with other inductive and deductive evidence.

Now come back to: 9 games with 2 errors ++ 6 white wins with 2 errors (?), (?) that undo each other and 3 black wins with a white blunder (??)

Here are the 6 white wins:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948179
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948250
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948217
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948198
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948222
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948273

And here are the 3 black wins:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948180
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948268
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=948246 

I say I can pinpoint the 1 error (?) in all 9 decisive games, usually the last move.
Can you pinpoint the white blunder (??) in the 3 black wins?

"It need not even be accurate, approximate is enough"

The point is that we know for a fact that errors in chess don't follow poisson distribution because the probability of the events is not independent of each other. By how much the probabilities are off with poisson distribution is pure speculation. The point is that we cant rely on it to rule out error distributions that poisson does not support.

If you really want to see how much poisson can be off, just play with scenarios where you have ie. a series of 100+ games where the errors would divide unevenly in clusters, just like they can in a chess game. You'll notice that a probability of a high error game is calculated way lower than it could in reality be.

"Can you pinpoint the white blunder (??) in the 3 black wins?"

I'm not trying to solve chess here unless I'm payed money

If at first, you can't Sicilian, then Caro-Kann.

@4718

"the probability of the events is not independent of each other."
++ You do not know if they are dependent or by how much.
Now assume they are independent and Poisson applies.
Then the result is that there is only 0 or 1 error.
So even if they were dependent it does not matter as there is no more than 1.
So the assumption was valid and Poisson applies.

"By how much the probabilities are off with poisson distribution is pure speculation."
++ Poisson is a plausible distribution. There being a large interdependence is pure speculation. Even if there is some interdependence, it plays no role, as there are only 0 to 1 errors.

"The point is that we cant rely on it to rule out error distributions that poisson does not support." ++ But then you have to say what error distribution you find more appropriate and calculate what results it yields. 

"play with scenarios where you have ie. a series of 100+ games where the errors would divide unevenly in clusters, just like they can in a chess game."
++ I am not talking about blitz games between 1700 rated players.
I talk about the ICCF World Championship Finals, with ICCF (grand)masters with engines and 50 days per 10 moves. So I start with conditions that lead to sparse errors.

"There being a large interdependence is pure speculation. Even if there is some interdependence, it plays no role, as there are only 0 to 1 errors."

Everything here is speculation. Thats the whole point, we don't rule out anything unless we have proof. Right now we dont have enough info to rule out there could be much more errors.

If there is interdependence there could be more errors than 0-1 because poisson distribution is not able to predic them.

Thats where we are at. Your theories are all fine in this topic and you could be right, but there are other options that can't be mathematically ruled out. 

Then of course the practical side of solving chess is whole another discussion but it's important to understand where we are now.

@4721

"we dont have enough info to rule out there could be much more errors."
++ At least make it plausible there would be more errors.

"If there is interdependence there could be more errors than 0-1 because poisson distribution is not able to predic them."
++ If the Poisson distribution leads to 74 - 77 - 40 - 14 - 4 - 1 like for the Zürich 1953 Candidates', then you could argue that the 40 - 14 - 4 - 1 need modification as there are more than 1 errors and they might be slightly interdependent.
However for the 30th ICCF WC Finals the result is 127 - 9 - 0.

"there are other options that can't be mathematically ruled out"
++ It does not matter if it is 99.7% sure or 99.4% or 98.5%.
The point is that we already have like 1000 perfect games with 0 errors: ICCF WC Finals draws.

"the practical side of solving chess is whole another discussion"
++ That is the topic of this thread.

"it's important to understand where we are now"
++ I say we have 1000 perfect ICCF draws > 99% sure to contain 0 errors that can serve as a backbone for weakly solving chess by peeling back the white moves one by one from the end towards another game. 

LOL

And all of this conversation has no bearing on whether chess will be solved. It is not solved by considering the error distribution in high quality games.

All my comments have been similarly critical. Previously, the conversation was centred around a consideration of the meanings of inapplicable definitions of types of solving. It would be far too much to expect anyone to reason why their comments are on-topic or why sub-topics are applicable, when they ar not.

Not even poor rationalisations of attempted sub-topics are attempted here. This applies to all the contributors, who value quantity of words and supposed authority over meaning. In particular, it applies to tygxc and to Elroch.

Advanced AI has a higher probability of solving Chess than solving your arguments!

237 pages later....

Chess will never be solved.

End of discussion!

@4725
Existing computers can weakly solve chess in 5 years, like GM Sveshnikov said.

Nonsense.

Unfortunately, that applies to more than one person here.

Is your name Frank?

"At least make it plausible there would be more errors"

I don't have to make anything plausible, I'm just pointing out the obvious - What conclusions we can make with the current information and what can we rule out just looking at stats and probabilities. You're presenting something as the back bone of solving chess that is on uncertain grounds. 

This conversation is converse to the entire methodology of "solving chess".

If solving depends on precise analysis of lines, that is not obtained by dicussing the probable distribution of mistakes. If it is imagined that a probable distribution of mistakes is helpful, then it can only be so as part of a means to try to design an algorithm that can predict them successfully.

Elroch and tygxc each claim authority on this subject: yet it's clear that both are dysfunctional, when it comes to actually understanding what those with contrary opinions are saying. Would I employ either to help if I were designing a means to analyse chess? Not the faintest chance.

Of course, there's the dog, whose function it is to chase away disagreements, if it can. Their only hope, really. It understands nothing but it makes loads of noise, when its masters have become stuck again.

@4731

"You're presenting something as the back bone of solving chess"
++ Yes indeed, according to my calculations over 1000 ICCF WC Finals games are 99.7% certain to be perfect games with 0 errors. Those games already represent years of engine and ICCF (grand)master calculations. Thus those games are a good start to weakly solving chess by the peel back procedure from the last move towards another of those games. About 3 of those > 1000 draws will fail the test and after scrutinization will be found to contain 2 errors that undo each other. 

Ah you're Roy.

Roy Orbital. He sang "It's Over", a reference to the third cricket Test Match of 1957 against Pakistan in Rawalpindi. They put England in to bat but there was a mixup over how many balls had been bowled in an over. Roy Orbital was at the match and it inspired him.