Chess will never be solved, here's why

“However, if the observed tournament is sufficiently strong as above @8951”

but that tourney isn’t necessarily sufficiently strong. 
Even if it was it still doesn’t follow Poisson.  The fact that it would even be POSSIBLE for a double error automatically disqualifies it.

Tygxc we aren’t talking about ‘suitable explanations’ we are talking about proofs.  Do you know how to read or understand basic logic?  

you also make an EXTREMELY BASIC ERROR IN LOGIC.

JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF DRAWS AND THE POISSON DISTRIBUTION PREDICTS A BUNCH OF DRAWS DOESNT MEAN THAT THE POISSON DISTRIBUTION IS CORRECT.

You also are ignoring every other way chess doesn’t follow Poisson distribution assumptions.

the fact that you didn’t even bother validating those requirements for the distribution before using it indicates that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

@8957

"that tourney isn’t necessarily sufficiently strong."
++ The ICCF WC Finals is sufficiently strong. As calculated there are at most 2 errors / game,
so there never occurs a double error and the errors are not coupled.
The Tata Steel Masters is not sufficiently strong, as at least one blunder (??) or double error occured changing a win to a loss.
Even then Poisson is a good approximation and the calculation is almost correct.

"the fact that it would even be POSSIBLE for a double error automatically disqualifies it"
++ No, something that could occur but does not occur does not disqualify.

Even if it does occur in rare cases like in Tata Steel Masters, it is still a good approximation.
Maybe for Tata Steel Masters the real distribution of errors per game differs slightly from the one calculated by the Poisson distribution, but the conclusions stay the same.

@8958

"we aren’t talking about ‘suitable explanations’ we are talking about proofs"
++ Newtonian mechanics and gravitation was proven by its ability to explain observed trajectories of planets. Einsteinian relativity was proven by its ability to explain observed differences of Mercurius, Moons of Jupiter, Neptunus and deflection of starlight by the Sun during a solar exclipse.

"Do you know how to read or understand basic logic?" ++ Yes, more than you.

"JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF DRAWS AND THE POISSON DISTRIBUTION PREDICTS A BUNCH OF DRAWS DOESNT MEAN THAT THE POISSON DISTRIBUTION IS CORRECT."
++ You misunderstand the argument. The only plausible way to explain the number of draws and decisive games is to reach the conclusion that chess is a draw, that > 99% of ICCF WC draws are perfect games with optimal play from both sides and < 1% are games with 2 errors that undo each other, that the few decisive games contain exactly 1 error.

Try yourself to come up with an alternative and plausible explanation:
Chess is:  a draw / a white win / a black win
Games with 0 errors: ...
Games with 1 error: ...
Games with 2 errors: ...
Games with 3 errors: ...
Games with 4 errors: ...
Games with 5 errors: ...

"doesn’t follow Poisson distribution assumptions"
++ How do you know it does not follow? What then do you think it follows?

"validating those requirements for the distribution before using"
++ That is done in many sciences. I gave an example: a voltage V accelerates an electron with mass m and charge e, 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 correct, else switch to relativistic mechanics:
Ve = mc²/Sqrt(1 - v²/c²)

"you really have no idea what you are talking about" ++ I do, you do not.

“The ICCF WC Finals is sufficiently strong. As calculated there are at most 2 errors / game, ”

That hasn’t been calculated yet lmao

"we are talking about proofs" ++ Me too. Newton's mechanics was proven by its ablility to explain observed motions of planets. Einsteinian mechanics was proven by its ability to explain observed differences in the motions of Mercurius, the Moons of Juipter, and deflection of starlight by the Sun during a solar eclipse.

"Do you know how to read or understand basic logic?" ++ I do, you do not.

"BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF DRAWS AND THE POISSON DISTRIBUTION PREDICTS A BUNCH OF DRAWS DOESNT MEAN THAT THE POISSON DISTRIBUTION IS CORRECT"
++ You do not understand the argument. Observed facts are 121 draws in 136 games.
The only plausible explanation is: chess is a draw, 120 games with 0 errors, 15 games with 1 error, 1 game with 2 errors, 0 games with 3 or more errors.

"chess doesn’t follow Poisson distribution assumptions"
++ How do you know? What distribution do you think the errors / game follow?

"validating those requirements for the distribution before using"
++ That is done in many sciences. Example: 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).

"you really have no idea what you are talking about" ++ I do , you do not.

@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?

I know you don't like replying to me because for all your education, I'm a lot better at this than you. However, you go on and on and on against tygxc, perhaps quite rightly so in some cases and not in others. But you say that he doesn't understand the difference between scientific and mathematical proofs and surely that isn't a relevant objection. I think his trouble is communication and relying on this repetitive bullet point thing, as he does, is not helping him. The example of the electron being accelerated looks correct to my aging mind, assuming that << means "considerably less than" or "sufficiently less than" c that relativity becomes insignificant.

But tygxc should learn English better.

What I think you fail to understand is that there can be no mathematics-like proof in chess, except for simple ideas, which can be represented logically. That is because chess is NOT solved in the exact way that is required here AND there is no prospect of it being so, as this thread itself amply demonstrates. We have to use a mixture of maths and science and as pretty much all science uses maths, that means we're using science. That means that existing evidence, if it is considered to be strong enough, is considered to suffice, because science is a pragmatic, knowledge accumulation exercise and it relies primarily on observations. And that is what tygxc is doing, so that his approach is the correct one, even though he's drawing bad conclusions.

I say that the thread demonstrates it rather than proves it, for a reason. Demonstration is more in the way of being scientific rather than mathematical proof and perhaps some people who try so hard to impress others are incapable of understanding simple and salient points like that.

@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?

You're hopeless at making logical arguments, you know. Newton's mechanics is correct for simple and simplified cases of relative motion. It is shown (proven) to be sufficient in such cases. In non-simple cases, other factors progressively become salient so that Newtonian mechanics is at best an approximation.

@8973

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