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

Also the word "mistake" can have different meanings.

In "chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake", we mean when niether side makes a mistake/error which would change the outcome of the game if the other side followed up correctly.

Hypothetically, if two omnipotent beings played each other and they played the most perfect game. They would forsee the best response to the end of the game before making a move. Neither of these beings will accept losing or a draw, but if neither side could win the game would never be played by them. So the existence of the perfect game is a contradiction, where neither side can gain an advantage and draws don't exist for omnipotent beings.

@Nekhemevich

Agree 100% Top computers suggest the game is a draw as well

yes. from my experience of 1300 games iam telling

I would suggest that black can make more than one small mistake and still hold the draw.

In principle, this should hold even more so for the white side.

This is a stronger claim than endless debates about what it mean to play  "perfect chess," or whether or not chess will ever be "solved" in a mathematical sense.

Neither of those two questions have definitive (or consensus) answers.

+1, for clear, pragmatic thinking.  The "clockwork universe" is a somewhat dated metaphor.  But a good one, none the less.

i think white would win because they move first so they have a 10% advantage so if both sides play perfectly then white will win

Chess is like clockwork in that both are human inventions. That's about it. Neither is an adequate analogy for the universe.

I think that it depends upon the amount of air in the ball.

hahahahahahaha!

Kasparov won the Deep Blue, and DB has a programation to always do the best move. So, did DB made a mistake?

Every single decisive game ever played, including games between Stockfish and Rybka or any other combination of engines, has been due to a decisive, demonstrable mistake (or several mistakes). 

If there was ever a game played that was won without a demonstrable mistake, this thread would be done, and so would chess.

SmyslovFan ... What you're saying isn't entirely true. Many decisive games required numerous demonstrable "mistakes." Although I would call them subtle errors and not so demonstrable. I can think of 1 very good example and an interview to go along with it. I must find the article. Kramnik was discussing all the former world champions. He said he lost a game to Karpov and that after the game, he still didn't understand what he had done wrong.

Justs99171  If Kramnik lost a game to Karpov and did not understand what he had done wrong--it was probably fairly soon after the game.

 If Karpov was asked again, he probably would know what he did wrong.

The fact that one super grandmaster is perplexed about one game proves very little or nothing.

OH! Come on now, are you kidding? Deep Blue did not and has not a program to always do the best move.

It is or was programmed to always play the best move it could find--which does not necessarily mean the actual very best move.

ponz111, Kramnik said he didn't understand after the game or soon after the game. I will find the article for you.

Interviewer – Has Karpov followed the versatile pattern?

Kramnik – Of course he has. Additionally, there is something mysterious about his play, no one else could cope with things like he did. It is easier for me to talk about Karpov because his collection of games was my first chess book. I studied his work when I was a child, later I played quite a few games against him. He is a versatile chess player, a good tactician who brilliantly calculates lines and positionally very strong. He also has a distinctive feature. Funnily enough, he has effectively denied Steinitz’s pronouncement: if you have an advantage you must attack, otherwise, you will lose it. When having an edge, Karpov often marked time and still gained the advantage! I don’t know anyone else who could do that, it’s incredible. I was always impressed and delighted by this skill. When it looked like it was high time to start a decisive attack, Karpov played a3, h3, and his opponent’s position collapsed.

Karpov defeated me in Linares-94 where he scored 11 out of 13. I got into an inferior endgame. However, it did not seem awful. Then I made some appropriate moves and could not understand how I had managed to get into a losing position. Although I was already in the world top ten, I failed to understand it even after the game. This was one of the few games after which I felt like a complete idiot with a total lack of chess understanding! Such things happen very rarely to top level players. Usually you realise why you have lost. This moment defies description – there is something almost imperceptible about it and so characteristic of Karpov.

http://playchessopenings.com/2014/10/25/chess-interview-kramnik-on-the-world-champions/

"Funnily enough, he has effectively denied Steinitz’s pronouncement: if you have an advantage you must attack, otherwise, you will lose it. When having an edge, Karpov often marked time and still gained the advantage!"

Very interesting insight!

That part you bolded is really interesting to hear too. Such humility by Kramnik there. I'd suspect Carlsen takes that sort of thing to the next level.

He [Kramnik] failed to understand what he did wrong in one game vs Karpov.  This was right after the game.

This was also a long time ago [1994] if I am correct?

But now he knows what he did wrong....[this is my point]

Agreed