Chess will never be solved, here's why

@8962

"That hasn’t been calculated yet"
It has been calculated.

Assume chess a white win or a black win.
No plausible distribution of errors exists, so chess is a draw.

Assume Chess a draw: a plausible distribution of errors exists:

120 games with 0 errors.
15 games with 1 error.
1 game with 2 errors.
0 games with 3 or more errors.

Try yourself to come up with another plausible distribution. You will fail.

Dam you REALLLLLY have no idea what you are talking about. Not only do you completely misrepresent the scientific process, you fail to recognize the fundamental differences between it and a math proof.

“A voltage V accelerates an electron with charge e and mass m, what speed v does it reach? Solution: assume v << c speed of light. Newtonian mechanics apply: conservation of energy: Ve = mv²/2. Thus v = Sqrt (2Ve/m). Now check. If v <<c then the result is valid, else switch to relativity: Ve = mc²/Sqrt(1 - v²/c²).”

 that’s just plugging in an already established formula.  That’s not science, that’s homework. 

“Assume chess a white win or a black win.
No plausible distribution of errors exists, so chess is a draw.“

a probability distribution isn’t a proof lmao.

it just means something is likely or not.

And actually no, the current non-Poisson distribution of errors can very well be plausible. 

you assume data that doesn’t exist.  Until you reach a forced draw or win, you can’t say whether a move is an error or not.  Hence you have no error data.

“120 games with 0 errors.
15 games with 1 error.
1 game with 2 errors.
0 games with 3 or more errors.”
You can’t prove to me that those games had that many errors

Here before you cite some statistic as “proof” that those games didn’t have any errors.  I’d be willing to bet money it isn’t even an accurate statistic.  

I’m the case of a white or black win, Assume a Poisson distribution of errors +1. 
120 games with 1 error.
15 games with 2 errors.
1 game with 3 errors.

How to play live chess?

@8965

"the scientific process"
++ That is one example of assuming something, then calculating based on that assumption,
then verifying the initial assumption was right, and thus validating the assumption and the calculation. It is done all the time in many sciences.

“Newton's mechanics was proven by its ablility to explain observed motions of planets”

 That’s objectively incorrect.  Newtons mechanics have not been, and cannot be proven mathematically.  

This is the type of lack of knowledge that I’m talking about.  I was aware of that stuff in middle school.

@8966

"a probability distribution isn’t a proof"
++ The whole of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics depends on probability.

"you assume data that doesn’t exist" ++ No, I take real data from sufficiently large and sufficiently strong tournaments and apply statistics on those.

"Until you reach a forced draw or win, you can’t say whether a move is an error or not."
++ I can by using statistics. It is even verifyable by inspecting the games. Exactly one error can be found in the 15 decisive games, usually the last move before resignation. > 99% of the draws have no single error at all. < 1% of the draws have 2 errors that undo each other.

@8969

"I’m the case of a white or black win, Assume a Poisson distribution of errors +1. 
120 games with 1 error.
15 games with 2 errors.
1 game with 3 errors."
That is impossible. Some of the decisive games were white wins, some are black wins.
It is not plausible either: why would there be not a single game with 0 errors?

@8973

"I was aware of that stuff in middle school"
++ You may get aware of the truth after you study at a university.

“It is not plausible either: why would there be not a single game with 0 errors?”

Why not?  You can’t prove it.

“That is impossible. Some of the decisive games were white wins, some are black wins.”

That changes nothing lmao.  Win to a draw to a win.  2 errors.

“One of the most popular misconceptions about science is the notion of “scientific proof.” Although it may seem paradoxical, there is no such thing as “proof” in science, only scientific evidence” - http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/scientific-proof/

oh wow wouldnt you know it, I was right.

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[22] many scientists and philosophers have argued that there is really no such thing as infallibleproof. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[23][24] Albert Einstein said:

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe", and in the great majority of cases simply "No". If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe", and if it does not agree it means "No". Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.[25]“

(Wikipedia)

Optimissed for your information Tygxc is missing the difference between a scientific understanding that the earth isn’t emscrambled eggs vs absolute proof.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=7342a5742fb1

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof?amp

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/for-educators/prepare-and-plan/correcting-misconceptions/

https://gizmodo.com/science-proves-ideas-and-other-misinterpretations-of-5919210

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/415-myths-of-the-nature-of-science

https://blogs.ams.org/phdplus/2017/04/17/math-is-like-science-only-proof-y/

couple of these seem to be kid oriented so you might be able to follow them Tygxc.

A lot of the time when they need to clear up science misconceptions it’s often to do with stuff like vaccines and climate change, where that does matter.  You are taking that quote out of context in other ways too.  A science journal isn’t part of ‘the media’