Chess will never be solved, here's why

@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.

Whom you like to argue with and the manner of your doing so definitely shows the level you're at!

“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.

That is the opinion of the person who wrote the article. It does not mean you or they are right. Scientific proof is a different type of proof. You're extremely naïve.

From your article:
"For years the media has led the public to believe many erroneous notions regarding science through its endless streams of faulty publications. Those misconceptions, in turn, have discredited science in its entirety and inspired a culture of doubt and distrust among the scientific community and the public."

That last sentence is drivel, posing as intellectually inspired opinion. Everyone, other than you, understands that scientific journalism is discredited and not science itself.

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’

You and I BOTH know that you are trying to troll with bad faith arguments.  

Actually, you are not a very clever person.

What's a bad faith argument, btw?

Oh, I Wikied it:

<<Bad faith is a concept in negotiation theory whereby parties pretend to reason to reach settlement, but have no intention to do so.>>

That obviously applies to you, not to me, because all you are ever doing is pretending that I am using bad faith arguments; and clearly that is in itself a bad faith argument, continually put forward by you and proving that you cannot be very bright, since you don't realise that it applies to yourself and not to me. I haven't really seen you use a deductive argument yet. Would you like to try?

Even a slow learner like yourself should by now have realised that he does not respond to arguments. The only way you can get through to him is by making those arguments, without anticipating a response; and he will take on board good arguments that help his own case and after a delay, they will reappear, rephrased as his own arguments. He never credits others, except Mr S, of course.

Trying to get the better of him in an open discussion can only be to try to Impress others. You can't make him give any ground and surely you can make a deductive argument, that it simply isn't profitable to continue arguing, especially since you're not very good at it?

Learn from others.

@8985

"Games with 0 errors: 24" ++ Then Chess is a draw. There were only 15 decisive games.
"Games with 2 errors: 18, Games with 3 errors: 18" ++ Not plausible, should be monotonous
"Games with 4 errors: 3, Games with 5 blunders: 6, Games with 6 blunders: 0, Games with 7 blunders: 6, Games with 8-10 blunders: 0, Games with 11 blunders: 3, Games with 12 blunders: 0, Games with 13 blunders: 3" ++ Not plausible, should be monotonous.

Obviously that's depends on who writes the Science Journal. If it's badly done, then it's just general media and it isn't worthy of being considered a Science Journal, excepting in the simplest terms, for children. Where they say that the entirety of science is discredited: that is nonsense and I don't see how it can be taken out of context. It doesn't matter if science is discredited in the eyes of people who have zero education and who think that, for instance, climate change is a government conspiracy, nobody went to the moon and the Russians were entirely to blame for invading Ukraine. It's what the Russians have done and how they did it that makes us despise such a dictatorship. Anything can be taken out of context.

Bland accusation, such as "you are taking that quote out of context" does not help your argument, unless you're prepared to show exactly how, in your eyes, a quotation is being taken out of context. Otherwise it's just an empty assertion. It's typical debating strategy here, though. In your words, it consists of a "bad faith argument", since you don't provide any argument in support of your assertion. In fact, I think you fail to provide arguments as a matter of course.

@8995

"random results from a probability distribution to precisely follow the expected values"
++ I expect the theory to explain observed facts.

"Your same argument would show Chess is a win." ++ No it does not. There is no consistent way to explain the observed results assuming Chess a win for either white or black.

"If you applied your argument to throwing a die and tried it out youl'd reach the conclusion that the numbers 1-6 couldn't be equally probable" ++ No, if the die is not loaded then the results will get closer to 1/6 each the more throws are observed.
If it does not, then the conclusion is the die is loaded and we can calculate how much.

"because that would mean the die should always land on 3½ and it didn't."
++ That is your thinking error, not mine.

"Any sequence of two real numbers is monotonic." ++ But every sequence of 3 is not. 

"blunder rates @Cobra91 measured"
++ That was not a sufficiently large, sufficiently strong tournament.

"om the example games I posted." ++ All 4 examples are irrelevant to weakly solving Chess.

"So are you giving up on your Poisson distribution?" ++ No.

"A Poisson distribution is not  monotonic except for values near λ=0 which doesn't fit this case."
++ It fits the case as calculated. If the tournament is sufficiently large (136 games) and with a sufficient number of entities competing (17 players), then statistics are applicable.
If the tournament is sufficiently strong like the ICCF WC Finals then λ is close to zero.