Sicilian or e5?

The Great Beyondo (J. Carson) has fortold that chess (when solved) will be a draw.

Thankfully, we shouldn't expect that to occur within our lifetimes.

That way we can argue about it endlessly in the forums.  Onward.  But it's best to not argue with idiots, or disinterested parties can't tell you apart.  

Chess is a draw, why are you arguing? Najdorf is one of the sharpest lines in the Sicilian.

Najdorf is sharp and unbalanced, Dragon is good, but it is sharp, and dangerous for both players, its a race to mate opening, Scheveningen is solid, but transpositions to Najdorf can make it lively, but I would recommend to go to a Najdorf, and then Scheveningen to avoid Keres Attack. I don't know much about classical. And Gavinator missed the Taimanov, Pelikan, Kalakashinov, Kan. 

Pelikan and Kalakashinov are closely related, and dynamic sharp openings. Kan is more flexible, but I don't know a lot about it. Same goes for Taimanov

Much of chess literature states it is overwhelmingly believed by the top players chess is a draw. My personal experience with very good players leads me to believe that at least 99% of top players think chess is a draw. There are exceptions such as Weaver Adams who was not such a good player and Hans Berliner who was a very good player-but the exceptions are just that.

As far as me trying to prove chess is a draw regardless of specific results of humans--I already addressed that point.

You say you have no idea if chess is a draw. But the vast majority of very good players believe chess is a draw. Again, I repeat-you make a poor argument when you misquote and you make a poor argument when you make statements which are not true about how another person comes to judgments about the question: Is chess a draw?' 

For the attention of JOEYDVIDRE............   You seem to be suffering from a bad dose of verball diarrhoea   You accused someone as being a PENDANT ( a piece of hanging jewellery) when you should have said,PEDANT!!! Also the opposite of Ambiguous is DISAMBIGUOUS. I could go on but fear you will take offence.Best wishes, Clive , 

Yeah, ummm i created this forum to learn about sicilian variations...not the Riemann Hypothesis

and I never said someone could prove chess is a draw--in fact I said that chess is too complicated for that. [ you seem to ignore selective things I say] Even more complicated [probably] than the Riemann Hypothesis [in terms of proving].

So go ahead and bow out because you misquote me again.

...you can't realy say the Catalan isn't any good "like the Sicilian Dragon". 

Check Avrukh's GM repertoire for 1. d4....its pretty deep on the Catalan and for good reason. And yes the Scheveningen is tough to crack, and doesn't present many attacking opportunities for black, but it offers up tons of counterplay against white, depending on white's attack. There's a reason it was one of Kasparov's favorite Sicilians. 

The Sicilian Varations I like for White are 1. e4  c5  2. Nf3  followed

often by 3. Bb5 or BB5+. White, in some of these variations gets rid of his  very slighly bad Bishop.

Saying something is "quite clear" does not mean that you can prove it.

It is as simple as that. I am sorry you cannot get this through your head.

[I would have thought you would have figured this out as  you, yourself gave a math theorm which many people believe to be true but noone has proved it!]

And again you misquote me to indicate that the ONLY reason I think chess is a draw is

because I think 99% of grandmasters thik it is a draw. You delibertly left out all the other reasons I gave why I think chess is a draw--the is disingenuous on your part.

You are trying to delibertly misquote me in order to make my logic look stupid but what is really stupid is to continue to misquote me.

Also,I never said grandmasters cannot be wrong this is another one of your attemps to misquote me.

You are wrong and your only defense is to continually misquote or to try and distort my position. I have had enough of you.

There should be some clarity here in what people mean by drawn. There is are things such as practically drawn and theoetically drawn in human player over the board. I consider CC and computer chess more of a theoretical discussion. From my understanding of CC chess most things are very VERY concrete while in OTB chess things can be played because there is some practical wiggle room where players can not be realistically expected to play perfect moves. 

+10, and even with a 32 piece tablebase, there is very little reason to believe the advantage of the first move can (somehow) force a win.  That's probably the core intuition associated with @Ponz111's references (above) to "what GM's think" about chess being a draw.

But we shouldn't conflate "logical proof" with either physics or chess.

Witness the recent boondoggle at Cern.  To wit, neutrinos have no mass, and they move at (exactly) the speed of light.  No surprises there.  But that specific experiment cannot "prove" Einstein's speed of light constant, only disprove it.

So this (physical) chess problem should be reformulated.  Can white (with the advantage of the first move) force a win?  Indeed, that's a much harder hill to climb than "proving a draw," however construed.

And the presumptive answer should be NO, until shown otherwise.  Just like the neutrino example at Cern, which generated lots more heat than light.  

I can remember one match of our National Team in the 1988 Olympiad.

We had an adjourned game to analyse, rather complex, where our player, objectively speaking, had no advantage. The team captain, GM Efim Geller, contibuted with a few remarkable ideas, and then rose up to go to sleep smiling, and saying with confidence that we would win.

On our objection that the position is equal, he said something like: "The position is indeed equal, but the players are not".
At least this is how it was transferred to us- Geller always spoke in Russian.

Geller (with his phenomenal positional instict, and outstanding chessic knowledge) was very right- our player won the adjourned game without much difficulty.

Unlike the Riemann Hypothesis, neither chess (nor physics) is a problem for (solely) pure mathematics, despite @Joey's continued bald assertions to the contrary.

And no obfuscating diatribe from you (of whatever length) will persuade thoughtful readers otherwise.

Why limit yourself to only a 4000 square chess board?  Great example?  Surely you can do better than that.  

On balance, you need about 1.5 evaluation (not 0.2) for a "winning advantage," assuring a practical forced win.

Your diatribe dissipates itself.  Does it not?

So take a chill pill.  And consider taking your Avatar to the dentist.  He needs some serious work.

Wow, still trying to "solve" chess via mathematic formulas? How romantic...

A +0.10 engine evaluation is enough to FORCE a win in certain setups... and in some other ones, some +3.something may well be a draw.

Don't forget that engines evaluate mostly material balances, and they are totally dumb when they have to evaluate positions with long-term offensive and defensive plans.

The fact that percentage of draws increases as level of play increases is enough for me to be nearly certain that chess is a draw.

Good point. What if engine vs. engine games are looked at? They only care about finding the "best" move, regardless of tournament conditions and other factors.

Another breath of sanity in this thread.  Thank you.

And when chess engines (playing at 3300+ strength) become equally strong in their "endgame technique," the above objections will fall by the wayside.