True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

root   first you need to point out where you think my arguments are not logical.

And 2nd while I have a rating over 2500 you do not have to trust my chess intution just check out what the intution of grandmasters and supergrandmasters is on this subject.

3rd I am not asking anyone to follow my intution--I am asking them to check out what I say themselves.  Find one game [other than forfeits or withdrawals or resigning in a drawn position] where White has won a game without his opponent making an error.  This is something you can try yourself without having to trust my intuition or the intuition of most grandmasters and supergrandmasters.

What about my previous example where black resigned on move 1? You are committing the moving goalposts logical fallacy - the criteria doesn't apply to you, only me.

conclude I already admitted you got me on that one and I should have made my statement realizing this.  I do admit my mistake on this.  

By the way one can answer the question posted here without doing a 100% proof that he/she is correct.  My answer is chess is a draw with perfect play by both sides.

Some will say it is undetermined because they cannot see the math proof.

Some will say chess is not a draw with perfect play by both sides.

For the person who asked why did I post another forum on the same subject?  it is because the other forum had about 3 subjects people were talking about and it got too confusing and I was asked to start a new forum on just this one subject..

I don't think there is nearly enough information at this point. I debunked your point about the early game draws, and everything else is just conjecture.

Illogical argument?  How about "Yes, I have studied logic.  My mathematical proof is partially stated above. Billions of games have been played and not one game was ever won without the opponent making a mistake."

If you know mathematics at all, you would know that your "proof" is complete bogus.  Here is a proof that the square root of two is irrational.

Assume, on the contrary, that   is rational.  Therefore,   = a/b (in the most reduced terms), for two integers a and b.  Then 2 = a^2/b^2.  So 2b^2 = a^2.  However, since 2b^2 is even, and no odd number squared is even, a must be even, therefore expressible as 2m, for an integer m.  Then 2b^2 = (2m)^2.  Simplify to get b^2 = 2m^2.  Then, by the previous argument, b must also be even (call it 2n).  So (2n)^2 = 2m^2.  Simplify to get 2n^2 = m^2.  Divide by n^2 and square root both sides.    = m/n.  But a/b was the most reduced fraction for   by the assumption that   was rational.  Therefore, the square root of two is irrational, reductio ad absurdum.  Q.E.D.

That is a proof.  I cannot prove it by saying "I tested billions of fractions and none of them were  ."  I proved it absoulutely.  There are more possible chess games than there are stars in the observable universe, so a few billion pales in comparison to the vast amount of possible chess games.  Also, you still define "mistake" very loosely.

Look, I'm not trying to attack you.  All I'm saying is that you might need to rethink your arguments a little bit.

Why can't we just assess the starting position as "unclear", and move on?

Is this your definition of a perfect game? No wonder we get nowhere.

Even if you gather billions of them, they are not a tiny proof. Since you can spend your whole life collecting them, you are missing the point.

I might agree "Chess is a perfect draw with best play from both sides", but I will not claim it is so without presenting an undisputable proof.

To clear things up, obviously it's undetermined whether a perfect game is a win, loss, or draw. There is no mathematical proof of this. Considering that it is an EXPTIME-complete problem it's unlikely that there ever will be such a proof.

When, I graduated from college in the 1960's I was not a math major.

What I'm saying is, that existing win/loss/draw data and statistics are pointing towards a draw being the very likely outcome of a perfect game.

These stats and my analysis are the "math" I was referring to-not the math as in a "mathematical proof"

One of my basis for this for this is it's unlikely  for Black to be a loss because the Black disadvantage isn't really enough to lead to a loss. It isn't likely to be a win for White because the White advantage isn't really enough to win either. 

Games between professional players result in a win only because the other player made a mistake.

Another indication is out of more then 10 billion games played nobody can show even one game where someone won without his opponent making a mistake. [This is a very good indication--ten billion games]

How do we know there was a mistake? We can analyze the game and see what moves could have been made to prevent the loss. We can also input the game to a chess engine to see what mistakes were made, or when a disadvantageous move had been made.

Also  games from the top Centaurs with the help of superchess engines playing chess against each other very often end up in draws. [more than 90% of the time] 

These observations are not a 100% proof , but the evidence is overwhelming that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.

With the combination of my ability to play chess and my years of experience--I am more than 99% sure I am correct but you do not have to take my word for it--ask any grandmaster or supergrand master.  Or, even better, take up my challenge to find one game where one side won without his oponent making an error.

A simple survey of GMs would probably indicate a strong preference for Chess as a game (when played well) that ends in a draw.

Thousands of threads have addressed this topic from thousands of angles.

Perhaps it's time to stop drinking this Kool Aid, and going round in circles?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/with-best-play-for-both-sides-chess-is-a-draw--so-why-do-we-play?page=1

and

ponz111 wrote: (#80)

Make up your mind, please.

And btw, the assertion "I am 99% sure that chess is a draw with perfect play" is a long way off "There is a 99% chance that chess is a draw with perfect play". (some people were/are 100% sure that the sun rotates around the Earth)

There are at least two ways to try and prove chess is a draw. One is "mathematical proof" and using that--it is undetermined chess is a draw with best play as we cannot use that type of proof as this kind of proof is beyond our reach.  The sun will explode before this type of proof is available. There will not be a 32 piece computer solution. So the first way does not work.

There is also circumstantial proof using math. This is not 100% proof, but there is over 99% chance that chess is a draw.

I have given the circumstantial proofs and they are very compelling and noone has really argued against them.

And I know that my being more than 99% sure chess is a draw is not the same as it is 99% sure chess is a draw. 

I declare chess is a draw with best play as I am very satisfied with the circumstantial evidence from which I came to the conclusion.

Very short games are very often perfect games as in very short games neither side usually will make a mistake. When you put these games under analysis with a chess engine it will show the game is such that neither side has a winning advantage.  This is how you can tell if a very short game is a win or a draw.

While it is true that a draw happens in about one third of all games but how is that relevant?

You might be convinced, but others are not and have argued against it, maybe you decided to ignore it ?

I think I will not betray your argument with the following summary :

1-I have yet to see, among millions of games, one that was won without any mistake (however slight) ;

2-most strong players think chess is a draw.

1-has been argued against : compared to "perfect play", humans and even current computers are patzers. So those games are basically worthless, in the context of "perfect play analysis" : every game, even 1.e4 e5 and accepted draw offer, might be full of mistakes for what we know.

2- has already being dismissed as authority argument : sure, GMs know a lot about chess and their opinion is valuable, but it is only useful if we know on what grounds it is founded ; the "feel" of an expert is no proof.

solve chess

exactly.

even 1.e4 might be a mistake against perfect play.

We won't know until we find a variation that  is better.That doesn't need chess to be solved to happen but I don't see it happening before that.

if even GMs are like Patzers compared to someone who plays perfectly and considering that probably even houdini is far away from perfect play, how could anyone know??

in fact 1.f4 and 2.g4!! are perfect play (and taking the $200 that your opponent offered u)