Is Chess Being Played Wrong?

The question is simple, is chess being played wrong? 

The current chess set up is 1-8/A-H and 8-1/H-A without changing the king and Queen on end 8-1, this in relation to the overall mathematical structure of the board considering chess to be a zero sum game based around game theory with each player having equal advantage and disadvantage from the beginning does not make sense, and instead in relation to game theory, the board should be set up as 1-8/A-H on both ends from left to right with both kings on E and Queens on D, this “squares” the board around two 90degree angles with the hypotenuse from from A1-A1. 

So is it being played in error, and therefore all chess championships and tournaments are invalid and all grandmasters deemed invalid? 

If not then can you describe a structure of the board that makes overall mathematical sense?

I can barely make sense of what you are asking.

The letters A-H refer to files.  There are only 8 files on the chess board.  Black and white don't have different A files, there is only one A file.

The numbers 1-8 refer to ranks.  There are only 8 ranks on the chess board.  Black and white don't have different 1 ranks, there is only one 1 rank.

Both kings are already on the E-file.  Both queens are already on the D-file.

As for game theory, try setting up a game with white's queen on D1 and black's queen on E8 and see how it works out.  I've never tried it, but I presume since you usually work to avoid having your king on the same file as the opponent's queen, this will create some very unfair (non-"zero sum") problems in the opening that the standard chess set up doesn't have.

Notice that even in Fischer Random the board is set up with mirror symmetry rather than rotational symmetry. 

Yes in the accepted form both Kings are on E but if you covert end 8-1/H-A to the structure of A-H symmetric to the opponents end then the King is on D and not E, therefore there is a flaw in the overall game of chess considering it is a zero sum game based around the mathematics of game theory. The board is left open in the current system rather than being squared as the mathematics would suggest it should be, and although some people may try and dismiss the flaw with accepted chess theory, mathematically it doesn’t make sense, the only way that makes sense mathematically is that both players play in symmetry to one another from the beginning with A-H/1-8 on both ends for left to right with both Kings on E and Queens on D and the board squared, and a range of new chess moves.

What's the deal with all these people from Ireland making new accounts multiple times a day and posting non-sense?

Your rule about demanding 'mathematically correct' boards is not clear and would result in inconsistent results.

Under your scheme you would have 2-fold rotational symmetry, but you would lose mirror symmetry. Under the old system, you have mirror symmetry but you lose 2-fold rotational symmetry. Therefore there is no inherent advantage under one system or the other, or you would have to explain why one symmetry is "better" than the other in terms of creating a fair game.

The only way to really tell is to play a number of games with the new setup to see what the win/loss rates are for computers. But there will likely always be an imbalance since white goes first. However, you still might find the win/loss ratio better under one scheme than the other. The key point is you need to test the system to work that out, its not obvious that a certain mathematical symmetry results in the most even games.

Even if the game is flawed that doesn't mean the results are invalid. We know the win/loss rates for white vs black, there is a very small advantage for white. Its not like everyone who plays white always wins because of some asymmetry you discovered (and which still needs to be related to the outcome using a clear argument, because defining a particular asymmetry on its own is not good enough). There is clearly a lot more to the game, like the player's skill which overwhelmingly determines the outcome.

What you're describing isn't chess though.