Chess will never be solved, here's why

On the contrary, you yourself prove that it's a Black win.

You base your Poisson distribution of blunders on the assumption that the probability of a blunder on any given move is constant throughout the game.

If you consider this game, in the final position (shown) White is theoretically losing ( you can check that here https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/7P/8/8/8/5K2/7r/3k4_w_-_-_1_47).

White's probability of blundering on the next move is therefore 0 since he cannot alter the position for the worse. From your assumption, White's probability of blundering was therefore 0 throughout the game and since he only ever had a finite choice of moves it follows he made no blunders.

But if White has made no blunders and is in a losing position it follows that Chess is a win for Black.

QED as you put it.

Only just about everything you say makes me understand that I'm right. It's comical how often you get things wrong. If you were a faster learner, you'd have stopped doing it by now.

Look, you believe you're better at this sort of thing than ty, don't you. I'm not so sure. I think you're similar to one-another. If you can believe you're better at stuff than ty, I can believe the same about you. There's no difference really. I know you aren't capable of thinking creatively and logically. You aren't brilliant. Simple as that. Goodnight.

Incidentally, I'm hardly the only one who condemns strategy stealing as an argument for chess.

To my knowledge, the only person in this thread who has said strategy stealing can be used for chess was @tygxc, and he may have later realised he was wrong.

Incidentally, I'm hardly the only one who condemns strategy stealing as an argument for chess. Experts on this sort of stuff also have said that their opinion is that it's nonsense. I'm not an expert but my arguments are similar to theirs, that chess is too complex, so it isn't proveable, so you can't claim it. It would just be like doing exactly the same as you condemn in tygxc.

Even so, I am more confident than you are that chess is drawn, due to my own argument, which I've mentioned. It's a sort of paper algorithm.

here's the goofy part, tygxc claims that only "sufficiently strong" players match the claimed distribution. (with no justification btw)

That's why I put one of his own games in as the example. He claims to infallably evaluate positions and recognise blunders.

this allows him to ignore all non zero values for his "proof" because he simply claims them as "not strong enough"

@11068

"the implementation of solutions are specific to each game"
++ Yes, like for Chess prune 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? right away.

Rather, like the implementation of solutions (remotely resembling your non solution) is specific to FIDE basic rules chess, FIDE competitio rules chess, ICCF chess etc.

Allis' weak solution of Connect Four, the weak solution of Losing Chess, and even Checkers all used game knowledge. For Chess that is necessary even more.

All using proven knowledge to verify (as opposed to expedite) the solution, no mention of a big red telephone anywhere. 

"elimination of 27 orders of magnitude is larger than all of checkers by 10 million times"
++ Larger game, larger reduction.

Don't think you quite grasped what he said.

Besides from 10^38 to 10^17 is 21 orders of magnitude.

I think he was basing it on 4.8x10^44 which is appropriate for basic rules chess. With 10^38 you've already started your silly reductions. You already conceded 4.8x10^46 (still a vast underestimate) for FIDE competition rules chess at the start of the thread before immediately forgetting about it, so you should accept 29½ orders of magnitude at least for that and ICCF chess (though it's out itself by many orders of magnitude).

You gave no reasoning why you could ignore the triple repetition rule for versions other than FIDE basic rules, You failed to put any upper limit even on the number of positions in KRK under FIDE competition rules. We don't currently have even an ultra weak solution of all positions in that endgame, nor any proposal for producing one.

the bit that tygxc misses is that he doesnt get to choose black's response.

by definition, the strategy steal must encompass ALL possible black responses.

Here is an obituary for the 3 times ICCF World Champion Dronov,
who passed away during the ongoing ICCF WC Finals.
https://www.chess.com/blog/Marignon/alexander-dronov-1946-2023-three-times-world-correspondence-chess-champion 
It shows that in those 3 World Championship finals there were fewer and fewer decisive games.
'To win a contemporary correspondence chess game, you have to do the impossible:
prove that the 3600 Elo engine is wrong.'

This 3600 Elo engine?

Easy peasy!

Now they are at 106 draws out of 106 games.

It practically always draws against itself from winning or drawn positions where it's out of its depth. It will do that already from positions where there are just five men on the board.

Just look back at all the examples I've given you where we can check its progress from the tablebases.

@optimissed. Whats you argument agains cantor?

The key is that you can run all positions past @tygxc himself, and he judges whether they are 100% winning. He can see this in a way that others can't (including conventional engines rated over 3500, which evaluate then as a material advantage much less than that where there is a forced mate, or similar strength top AIs which ascribe them a probability of winning less than 1.0) - he also has the unique capability to detect that when two players have had a run of draws, the next game between them will also be a draw, refuting common sense and quantitative assessments.

I am not sure how he achieves this supernatural insight, but he is psychologically certain of it despite all objective reasons not to be, so it must be ok.