Chess will never be solved, here's why

Do explain. I don't recall being wrong.

Do explain. I don't recall being wrong. I do recall considering two alternative questions (I was looking for a question to fit Ghostess' answer, but I didn't end up with one - I am pretty sure there is another well-known problem she was thinking of).

@MARattigan, fortunately that would not matter, because anything that happens after you do hit the black ball does not affect the outcome of interest.

Actually math is very much a 'strong suit' of both Elroch and MEGA.

well neither ones proving now...are they ?

No. This is because every successive trial removes a ball from the hat. That is to say, your probability of success on the first attempt is 1/100, on the second 1/99, etc. Your calculation assumes the black ball is replaced into the pool every attempt, which i dont believe the op of the problem suggested.

u needta thinka it as a lottery. except 1 number in a 100. not 5 in 70. then ull know ur all solving it wrong. ur brains swelled & trapped in a box. expand u beauzeauz...think !!

...trust me. its not that hard lol !

wait a sec...u bloat like a balloon abt how u dom stockfish. am im gonna all a sudden listen to u ? ...plz.

You should actually be thanking me for fighting so strongly for the wellbeing of your loser dunce behind. And if you didn't resent your daddy deeply you would be thanking me.

I do, actually. Because as humans we have a common human nature, and it is just fundamentally not healthy for humans to debate online about how tablebases are formed for 4.5 months continuously. We know that. It's also deeply unhealthy to be unable to cope with people pointing out when you're engaging in unhealthy behavior. It'd be healthy for you to stop arguing with me / babbling off rationalizations, and just accept all of this. Dr. Phil would be proud if you could do that.

Not really because I can see the same people debating on page 1, on page 100, on page 300, and still here at page almost 600. You're correct I didn't look at all the individual pages. Good job, aren't you an impressive pseudo-intellectual, you have pointed out that I have not looked at every single page of this pointless debate, wow you are smart aren't you, and you even wrapped this point up in nice big debate words, man I can't even keep up with you.

Well actually... there is a plural form of "you", and since you're presuming to defend this activity on principle you are appointing yourself to broadly represent those involved. But no, my comments aren't directed at people who have made 1 or 2 comments in the thread (I know I need to clarify this for you), but rather those who have kept the thread going for 13000 posts. And no, it's not a diverse bunch of people spontaneously keeping this thread alive, it's one small set of people. Anyway, you have a real talent for completely ignoring the meaning of things, and squabbling over just the little semantic details, don't you? Maybe you have some autism. You should go to a psychologist and see if they can diagnose you. It could help you become less crippled. 
What seems more important ... squabbling over this semantic nonsense, or addressing the issue that you / others have sat on your a$$es for 4.5 months continuously debating how tablebases are formed, and are still continuing to? 
For you the nonsense matters because you have to prop up your weak, fragile ego. That's how you try to do it... it's why you participate in these debates, why you can't turn away from them after 13000+ posts... and it's also why, when I point this out, it's such a sensitive spot for you, and it makes you so pissed off doesn't it?

Well if the activities are a waste of time they're indistinct, in terms of their intrinsic value, from squabbling with people on the internet. And the phase "such as - a, b, c, etc." does not suggest that all elements listed are included, but rather elements of a similar nature to those listed. So no... you did make that claim. You made that claim, but you try your best to be pedantic and to ignore the meaning of what's being said to you - irony being that it is, infact, you who needs to be more perceptive - or rather, to not be intentionally imperceptive as some meaningless debate tactic.

Anyway... if you really can't recognize that squabbling for 650 pages over chess tablesbases is intrinsically meaningless, or that regular everyday activities (some examples of which I listed) have inherent meaning, I'm not sure i can really explain that to you... most normal people reading this can recognize the difference though. And so can you, you're just pretending that you can't, being stupid on purpose essentially.

Of course I do - your own prolonged participation in this thread, combined with your own statements and attitudes. Your behavior makes it very clear what kind of lifestyle you live, and that there's a problem that needs fixing. That's just the truth, I'm sorry it hurts but I didn't put you in this position, you did. I'm just pointing out the reality. Infact I'm hoping you will take it to heart and turn the ship in another direction. Don't shoot the messenger, little man.

The person feeling sheepish here is you when I point out you / others have been dwelling in this thread for 4.5 months worth of uninterrupted time debating how tablebases are formed. 
4.5 months of continuous debating is a long, long time. What would you all have done if I hadn't mentioned it? Just kept going? 
I wonder how long you could go if just left uninterrupted... just kept going like the energizer bunny. 
Maybe I'll come back in a few years and see if this is still going on. I'll put it on my calendar 2 years from now.

Well the statement here is more based on observation of your behavior and attitudes than some formal logical deduction. However, loosely the way a person treats others is a reflection of how they want to be treated, so there is some logic underlying it. You're correct this hasn't been logically formalized, though. I'm glad you figured out the difference between your debate class and real life. 
You're trying very hard to appear intelligent but it doesn't work when your argument has no substance, it is just plain to see you do not want me questioning your behavior. Like all we have to do is just observe your reaction here. Keep trying.

Well you had to be eating something the entire time. What were you eating? Not Cheetos, so what then...? Pringles? I hope you're not starving in your basement so preoccupied with debating chess tablebases that you can't even be torn away long enough to eat, just wasting away. Maybe your mom is bringing a trash can downstairs for you to take a dump in... I hope so.

There's a giant, gaping chasm between your behavior and the identity you aim to put forward. It is as wide as the grand canyon!

You may have the last word.

oh no the removal calculation is just straight 50/50, i had just assumed u meant the other one because the removal calculation problem is trivial.

in fact, i explained in multiple ways how it is trivial elsewhere on the forum.

edit: didnt see your second post, my bad. since someone else got that erred value im curious what the error was .

Actually math is very much a 'strong suit' of both Elroch and MEGA.

well neither ones proving it now...now are they ?

His figures are still wrong. The chance of success assuming replacement is 30.56% rounded. ...

I think you might like to try that one again.

The formula is quite simple: to calculate the probability of k successes in n trials the formula is

C(n,k)p^kq^n-k

where C is the binomial coefficient p the probability of success and q the probability of failure. Just plug in the numbers and you'll get the answer