It's been my experience that "wins" are the result of weak moves by your opponent. Sooo you don't win. Your opponent looses.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Hmm you are right!

By definition, a game with no mistakes by either player is a draw... So yes, you cannot "win" against perfect play.

Not technically true you can win on time

That's also a mistake by your opponent!

It's not a 'weak move' though. Unless your move strength factors in time too.

Absolutely. Using all your game timer for one move is a very weak move, isn't it?

How about half of the timer?

And so on.

The notion of it not being a win just because your opponent didn't play perfectly is plainly nonsense anyway.

Almost all games ever played in chess history have been containing some or the other mistakes

Of course. Thankfully we aren't all computers, and no CS major (like I will be) has solved chess yet.

Bingo.

Well, ches is not solved....so even computers make minor mistakes

Well... chess hasn't been solved, so define mistakes. If I play white and checkmate someone using the Fool's mate or the four-move checkmate, I did not make a mistake.

You make a mistake by moving pawns in the front of king in the fools mate

How is that a mistake if I play white and WON the fool's mate? There's nothing wrong with 1. e4!

This subject was thoroughly beaten to death more than half a century ago. Tartakower summed the whole subject up when he said: "The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."

In fools mate, its white who looses, not black

Fools mate first move is either 1.g4 or 1.f3, not 1.e4

It can be done by either side to either side, it just takes longer with white.

Actually it's not a weak move, period. Because it's not a move. They didn't move, therefore they lost on time. It's not a move, therefore it's not a weak move