Chess will never be solved, here's why

@8735

"I discuss what you" ++ Not always. I explain the 106 draws out of 106 games by an error distribution 106-0-0-0-0. You proposed 105-0-1-0-0 as viable too and I cannot dismiss that.
Even 104-0-2-0-0 could be viable. However, given the redundancy in the ways to draw in the 106 games, it would end up like 69-0-37-0-0. That is not viable.
Thus Chess is a draw and we have over 100 perfect games that show how to draw.

@8708

"You also have a choice of fitting a Bernoulli distribution..."
++ I chose the Poisson distribution because it is a tail-end approximation of the binomial distribution, suitable for rare events.
I arrive for the 2024 Toronto Candidates' Tournament at average 1.1 error/game:
0 error: 18 games
1 error: 21 games
2 errors: 12 games
3 errors: 4 games
4 errors: 1 game
Please feel free to propose any other distribution you believe more suitable and state the distribution of errors and the average number of error/game.

@8731

"106 results in the ICCF world championship are a random sample from the population of all such possible games between the same players"
++ Yes, but that is not the point. I am not making predictions based on that, not even about the 30 ongoing games. In fact I even expect at least one of the 30 ongoing games to end decisively because of human error, while you estimated a probability on 10-8.
I interpret the 106 games and the 106 only and draw conclusions about the games in particular: at least 100 perfect games with no errors, most probably 106, and about Chess in general: it must be a draw.

This is false logic. you dont get to CHOOSE a distribution. it either fits the axioms or it doesnt. this is more of you choosing whatever is convenient.

and its already been pointed out that the majority of axioms required for a poisson distribution do not apply to chess. why havent you addressed that?

stop lying to yourself. its making me genuinely angry how you are being pointed out as objectively incorrect in many many ways and yet you continue to prattle like you have something to contribute. intellectual dishonesty disgusts me, and yours is of one of the worst kinds.

tygxc do you have a language barrier?

its the only remaining explanation i can come up with for how you miss basic logical points and definitions so easily---beyond you just being a delusional narcissist.

@8737

"chess can't be solved."
++ Present technology cannot strongly solve Chess, but the ongoing ICCF WC Finals with 106 draws out of 106 games is at least part of the weak solution of Chess, like Schaeffer did for Checkers.

@8741

"every single move in all of those games are potential errors"
++ No, that is impossible.
Then there would also be games with an odd number of errors and thus a decisive outcome.
The only way to explain 106 draws out of 106 games is to assume all errors magically come in pairs. However an error distribution of e.g. 0-0-100-0-6-0 is not plausible:
you cannot have 100 games with 2 errors and not a single one with 0, 1, or 3 errors.

"Then there would also be games with an odd number of errors and thus a decisive outcome."

wow, as usual, you cant even understand the bare minimum of what im saying. I dont know why i even bother when you cannot comprehend basic logic.

"Present technology cannot strongly solve Chess, but the ongoing ICCF WC Finals with 106 draws out of 106 games is at least part of the weak solution of Chess, like Schaeffer did for Checkers."

why are you contributing definitions when you dont understand them yourself?

tygxc answer this. you are aware that nobody with more than 30 minutes on this forum (other than optimissed, who is actively trolling) consider you to be anything other than some guy who spews misinformation, and you havent once thought to actually look at what you are saying?

also tygxc, im noticing how you choose to only address some of what i am directly asking you.

In addition, it is getting pretty clear that the stuff you "address" is only stuff that you can rationalize into your fantasy.

it is pathetic to watch you do this.

@tygxc, do you understand that people can agree with you that chess is probably a draw, while also being aware that coming to the conclusion that something is probably true is BY DEFINITION not a proof?

You would not be foolish enough to claim there was literally ZERO probability of the conclusion not being true, would you?

If the latter is true, a very enlightening thought experiment is this:

You definitely start at some time with uncertainty about the result of chess (start before any decent chess engines, if you like!) then you get more and more evidence. Say individual games or even moves with evaluations. Exactly the sort of thing you are relying on. At every stage in this process, you have a state of belief about the result of chess. This can provably be quantified as a probability. The probability can change over time, but starts off somewhere strictly between 0 and 1.

In order to reach a probability of 1 that chess is a draw, it LOGICALLY has to be the case that there is a point in the process where your belief state about whether chess is a draw is a probability that is NOT 1 and you get just ONE MORE piece of evidence and then the probability is 1.

This is patiently ridiculous, and should be to you as well. The result of one game (or even the evaluation of one move) cannot justify this change in belief state.

The truth is that a valid estimate of the probability that chess is a draw NEVER reaches zero by this approach. It can only do so by a proper proof - a weak solution without any short cuts. Such a proof exhaustively deals with all possible opposing play. If you ever ignore an opponent move you merely get to a SMALL probability that chess is not a draw, not to ZERO.

I don't feel the above reasoning should be beyond anyone with an adequate grounding in probability theory - the quantification of uncertainty. [This is Bayesian probability theory - provably the only consistent way of quantifying states of belief in a boolean proposition].

He also down votes every comment he disagrees with like that gets you anywhere besides everyone knows(most people ) on the Internet if you don't like something best to not I've attention by disliking or down voting just report instead

My theory is that tygxc is simply toying with educated informed members by testing their emotions and emotional control.
Regarding 'delusional narcissist' that's possible in his case but unlikely.
That description much better fits the person now muted by chess.com here.
But MEGA - you're dissecting/describing what he does at least as well as anybody before you.
Or is it vivissecting?
You appear to know exactly what he's doing.
Dio - Elroch - Martin also seem to see it exactly.
------------------------------------
tygxc's attachment to the 106 draw thing will probably continue.
No matter how much we refute it.
Eventually he might cycle back to the 'square root' idea plus continue to exploit all the verbal footholds and semantics tactical opportunities inherent in the terminology 'weakly solving'.
Its very possible he has no generic understanding at all of math and science.
And its also very possible he does and is just pretending not to.
Nonetheless - his inclination to brand name interpretation is similiar to what we see among the various kinds of science deniers on the website.
They need to mis-premise to start.
Constantly.
And their way to do that is to constantly avoid the basics.
Basics that aren't man made. What I like to call the generics.
-----------------------------
MEGA - its beyond intellectual dishonesty.
Its anti-science mass hysteria. And its huge.

For those who have a solid foundation of knowledge of maths and sciences - 
can it be hard to understand how denialisms of maths and sciences work?
One might be astounded by the 'constructs' and other misinterpretations by the denialists.
One might think 'no - nobody could ever think that - we should just dismiss that'
But in the world of the psychological - almost anything goes.

Evolution deniers will often think that evolution is about Darwin and that is part of their mispremised route to dismissing the reality of evolution.
Its not about Darwin.
And DNA is not about Watson and Crick and Thompson.
And the quantity Pi is not about Pythagoras.
All these things are generic. Generic realities.
They're not man-made.

They're not belief systems either.
Pi isn't a belief. And it doesn't need humanity in order to exist.
Its generic.
Reaction: 'that's all obvious. Your point??'
the point is what's obvious to you - it doesn't work like that - for them or to them.
Why not? They don't want it to.

Dam this shit going deep

@tygxc p437

... humans at 3 min/move arrive at 1.1 error average per game.

@8761

1.1 error average per game means 11 errors in 10 games, or 110 errors in 100 games.
Errors only come in natural numbers.

Sure but your forgetting to factor in random chance

And it being 12 errors in 10 games of 90 errors In 100 or something like that

@8755

"It can only do so by a proper proof - a weak solution"
++ No. The game of Hex has been ultra-weakly solved and not weakly.

"without any short cuts" ++ With as many smart short cuts as possible.
The weak solutions of Checkers, Connect Four (Allis), Losing Chess all used smart short cuts.

We have a different interpretation of what 'any opposition' in the definition means.
To you it means all legal moves. To me it means all legal moves that oppose i.e. strive against achieving the game-theoretic value.

I propose the following. Let us partition the weak solution of Chess into 3 parts.
Part 1 covers how to draw against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3, sensible moves only.
Part 2 covers how to draw against 1 a3, 1 a4, 1 b3, 1 b4, 1 c3, 1 d3, 1 e3, 1 f4, 1 f3, 1 g3, 1 h3, 1 h4, 1 Na3, 1 Nc3, 1 Nh3.
Part 3 covers how to win against 1 g4?, 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nd4?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5? 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng5?, 1 e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nh4?
My interest is in part 1. If you have an interest in parts 2 and 3 that is fine with me, but I do not.

"you merely get to a SMALL probability that chess is not a draw, not to ZERO."
++ Again: ultra-weakly solving Chess does not require weakly solving it. Counterexample: Hex. Ultra-weakly solving Chess is determining if it is a draw, a white win, or a black win.
I am sure Chess is a draw, but people are free to believe in a white win or a black win.

@8765

Here is another one: Zürich 1953 Candidates: 210 games, 92 decisive games.
0 error: 74
1 error: 77
2 errors: 40
3 errors: 14
4 errors: 4
5 errors: 1

Average 104 errors per 100 games
They played slower than now: 40 moves in 2.5 hours and they adjourned after 5 hours of play.