Chess will never be solved, here's why

The ostrich dance, often seen in African cultures, symbolizes strength, agility, and unity. It mimics the movements of the ostrich, embodying its grace and power.

This dance is not only a celebration of the ostrich's traits but also a communal activity that reinforces cultural identity and togetherness.

@11239

"proof that all of them arent erred"
++ You have no indication that all 106 games would contain 2 errors that cancel each other.
The plausible explanation of the observed fact of 106 draws is 106 games with 0 error.
It could be that 105 games have 0 error and one game has 2 errors.
In that case there is not one, but several back-up lines that draw.

" You have no indication that all 106 games would contain 2 errors that cancel each other"

and you have no indication that any of them dont have errors.

there doesnt have to be indication on my end, thats what proof means. dude this is like 6th grade logic bro.

@11243

Observed: 106 draws of 106 games.
Error distribution: 106 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Possible error distribution: 105 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 still proven because of redundancy.
Impossible error distribution: 0 - 0 - 106 - 0 - 0.
There is no reason to have 106 games with 2 errors and none with 0, 1, or 3 errors.

"Error distribution: 106 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0"

he says, without evidence.

we still waiting on evidence.

Random events do not happen for a "reason". They happen with a non-zero probability. What you are doing is thinking "if errors are common enough for there to be a game with 2 errors, it is certain there are games with 1 ".

This is not actually any sort of reasoning, it is a mistaken conclusion.

Correct reasoning would involve estimating the probability that there is a game with 2 errors without there being a game with 1 error, and show that it has low probability. You can be sure that with any reasonable assumptions the probability would be non-zero.

[In addition you are making an unwarranted assumption of independent errors. In truth if there is a crucial line that one player is likely to miss, it is probably more likely the other one will too, especially if the players are very similar in their analysis procedure (latest Stockfish). This means both players may pass it by, making a double error. Every chess player has seen such examples even in human games where the players are not so similar].

No.

I can guarantee neither Ghostess nor any one of the many other people who read and contributed to the thread you mean (probably the biological evolution one) ever saw such a fallacious post. That's because it did not exist - it is your mistake.

For balance, neither have you made any posts claiming you were paraplegic or have leukemia.

I agree. The trouble with Elroch (one of the troubles) is that he employs pedantry whan it suits him and rejects it in others also when it suits him.

The idea that all 106 games contain an even number of errors is sheer pig-headedness. Wonder what the odd against it are? The ridiculous argument in support of Cantor illustrates it. No indication at all that it (Cantor's idea) isn't just an hypothetical musing, which is exactly what it is and which is exactly the same as people like ME used to play with when I was about 10 or 13.

In fact, working out the odd against there being an even number of errors in all 106 games is extremely simple.

THE ODDS AGAINST THAT HAPPENING ARE 81 x 10^30 to 1.

I just showed that your rejection of txgxc's argument is also a lie. There's no question about it. When you repeatedly lie, no-one is going to believe you unless they are very gullible. I could post a photo of her messages but I won't stoop to the depths you inhabit.

She is not the only one who has told me they are sure you use a number of alts. Others believe that too. I must admit that the thought has crossed my mind, several times in the past 5 years, that you are also iDioland plafr. Both of them. It isn't something I necessarily believe so much as a reoccuring hypothesis.

.

Coming from a statistician as expert as you, it is clear that not accepting tygxc's argument is merely yet another fabrication, to test whether other people remain as gullible as you believe them to be.

I have sometimes wondered why D and p unfailingly support you, with only a few minor disagreements, politely stated, regarding unimportant detail. And why they share the characteristics of vanity, projecting and narcissism, which last is an indicator of serious mental difficulties. And why you tolerated them in your threads whilst also being very obviously and unduly sensitive to other people who disagree with you, often for very good reasons. I certainly think you suffer from obsessive-compulsive behavioural patterns, which indicates why you are not tucked away in your safe threads, from where you have blocked anyone who dares to disagree with you. The obsession-compulsion has compelled you to seek confrontation, since, perversely, you deny it to yourself in your own threads. It also explains blocking me very often but just as often, unblocking me and if I eventually comment in your threads, you start off by being polite but unfailingly become more provocative and deliberately start arguments which you escalate.

The last time it happened I refused to be drawn and didn't respond impolitely. I was testing you out. That's when you started complaining of your stress levels and a heart condition. Perhaps it seems to you that your stress is reduced by letting out your emotions in an argument but it doesn't work like that. It's more a case of neural reinforcement. I believe you are now permanently over the edge.

I am telling you this for your own good, because you are already descending into something which has very serious health implications for you. That is true whether or not you really think you didn't make those posts about your own health. It doesn't affect the reality very much. You need to do something about it because I think you are descending into a place from which there will be no escape unless you get help pretty much right away.

If it's all the same with you, you may find me responding to your posts less in future, if not at all. For reasons expressed above I will also avoid responding to D and p. I wish you well, because I believe this is something out of your immediate control. All the best.

@tygzc

How do you know a more powerfull machine would not find a win ?

Presumably a joke, but given your proven level of mathematical skill one can never tell.

What would you calculate to be the odds of an odd number of errors (half points blundered on @tygxc's basis) in all 106 games?

Given that the initial position is either a theoretical win or a draw, the two two figures should add up to 1. Do they?

What are the odds of there being an odd number of errors in the 13 games posted here, given that the initial position should be a White win and they all end in draws? (It's a test of your stupendously high IQ.)

The odds against it seem to be 81 x 10^30 to 1.

Exactly the same odds. Obviously they do not add up to 1, since they represent opposite extreme ends of the probability graph. It's exactly the same argument.

It is interesting how you mix comically obvious lies with genuine blunders.

I was actually cheating slightly in that calculation but doing nothing more than you lot do, by oversimplification. It still provides the same intuitive answer that there is no real chance, on the basis of 106 games, that chess is not a forced draw with best play.

And it's amusing how you attempt to defend the indefensible. Now, how about leaving it out from now on? Don't engage me if you don't like either being shown up because I win the arguments or because you insist on going to inordinate lengths to try to prevent my being seen to win.

Do you like my English Grammar btw??

Yes. You failed.

He will be equally unhappy to hear I exposed his lying about Ghostess, by telling her about it.

No, RATMAR, I was using exactly the same method that Elroch used in his comparison of the results of chess games with the results of coin tosses. However, there's a "however". Although the results of chess games are not stochastic, they do depend on the numbers of errors and if an error is to be defined as losing a half point, there would need to be a statistical analysis of the numbers of errors in drawn games, which we are not yet ready to calculate by analysis of the games, since that is what this discussion is concerned by.

What is pretty obvious, though, is that you are not capable of giving useful points of view since you always make more errors than those you try to interlocute. Your arguments consist of comparing the colour of the socks, worn by those you pretend to disagree with, with the colour of your own socks. In other words, arbitary and unrelated to any proper argument. You should have retired when you retired, 106 years ago.