[ultra-weak ]proof that chess is a Draw

The below six-move example results in a draw via three-fold repetition, with no determinable blunders: a perfect round.  One can argue that any one of the retreating knight moves from that scenario was weak and thus not perfect, and indeed by some engine-evaluation metrics surely is, but you cannot prove that any flaw occurred; a single weak move by itself does not throw the round (lower the theoretical score of the round, which did not happen on 6...Nb8 either if chess does indeed guarantee a draw with perfect play from starting-position at turn0). 

Otoh, just about any round that ends in a victory by one side exhibited at least one determinable flaw by the side that lost, even if the blundered move[s] are not quickly discernible as such by humans.  Most round-deciding blunders at the sub-master level can however be assessed rather easily, with the below Fool's Mate an [admittably extreme ]example.

Only 2.f3 was was a blundee, and indeed a blunder it was; it lost the round in one turn. 

In complex positions, there are often only a couple of strong 'accurate' move options for the side to play. There may be five or six other decent moves and plenty of weak moves that don't throw the round on that turn (and plenty of potential blunders that would), but they are 'inaccuracies' in that they are sub-optimal, as measured by engines and assessed by humans. If player A plays only 'strong' moves versus player B's only 'weak' to 'decent' moves, at some point player B's move was a flaw--- at the half-turn that gave player A a winning advantage--- but not before.

The first example is invalid as there are blunders, such as at 27.Bf4 en prise (Black probably to win; 27...Qe7 a blunder as gives back advantage).

Why do you detest me so?  And how am I being a smart-ass? I guess you didn't notice the name of the board ('Fun with Chess').  If either of us, you are being the smart-ass.

"Question No 2:Are you in a point where you can play perfect chess and if the game is draw you have no reason to play?"

Did I state or imply that anywhere? Obviously I am not perfect at chess (even if I can fabricate a 'perfect' round); nor are you; nor are even top engines as of yet.  Therefore, knowing that the game is most probably a Draw does not severely reduce the playability of it. It is worthwhile to consider, as is any game worth 'solving' in this sense, hence this thread.

The word 'hate' is slightly too strong there and I literally was changing it to 'detest' (now modified) as you were responding.  I call you out on that not for merely disagreeing with me (and not as an erroneous 'tactic'), but for stalkerishly seeking out my threads just to attempt at invalidating my assertions based on my stupid Chess.com ratings (as if I am on trial or my online ratings carry much relevance outside of actual gameplay).

And your traveling analogy is utterly flawed.  Do I need to explain why? You are exhausting without even addressing the points of this thread (or barely so, using faulty reasoning), which as stated is "ultra-weak" not a formal proof like you are implying that I'm parading on.

"  You try to prove that chess is a draw when none of the 2 wants to actually play chess." 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Please re-phrase or retract.

It is possible for a round of chess to end in a draw with perfect play by both sides (or at least unprovable as any errors played).

The same cannot be said for rounds that end in a win for White / loss for Black or win for Black / loss for White.  Not all rounds resulting in a draw were blunder-free but NONE concluding in a defeat/victory by one side are, at least to the furthest extent that tens of thousands of rounds have been analyzed.  By process of elimination, this suggests that the guaranteed result of a perfectly (or perhaps more aptly stated, 'non-imperfectly') played round of chess must always end in a draw.

You mis-read my words. I said "[...] the guaranteed result of a perfectly or non-imperfectly played round of chess must always end in a draw."; I am editing the 'non-imperfect' part to parenthetical notation. I make this distinction as most people seem to think of a 'perfect' sequence of moves as those that cannot be improved or made 'stronger'. I am using a looser take as in "blunderless" with the term 'blunder' being distinguished from inaccuracy. Therefore I offer the term 'non-imperfect' to mean blunderless ("does not change theoretical result of the round"), distinct from 'perfect' which implies (connotes although does not denote) 'accurate' ("strong", "no inaccuracies").

ummm - can't go to miami if you don't go out of your house - bet someone a kabillion dollars you can - then you sit in your house doing nothing and pay house movers a bunch of money to move your house to miami - then you in theory make a kabillion dollars minus the house moving fee doing nothing - what would be cool is if they taught that greek logic thing in school - I never really studied it but it is cool - like a carrot is a veggie therefore whatever whatever

============================================================

 This is a well known tactic.If you don't agree with some absurd ideas some people have then you hate them.

 Why should I hate you?Because I say my opinion?

Is it possible that I don't hate you and I simply find all this ridiculous?

Is it possible that it is indeed ridiculous?

     You try to prove that chess is a draw when none of the 2 wants to actually play chess.

IT'S LIKE TRYING TO PROVE THAT YOU CAN'T TRAVEL TO MIAMI(OR ANYWHERE ELSE) IF YOU DON'T GET OUT OF YOUR HOUSE <- a person states that this premise is true - based on "COMMON SENSE" - this premise is NOT true - and if COMMON sense were COMMON we would all think the same and there would be No forums no discussions no diagreements and no arguements because we would all tink da .................wait for it ..............same

Common sense says that something like that doesn't need proof.If though I try to prove it and some find it ridiculous , is it because they hate me or because it might indeed be ridiculous? 

That's a matter of semantics.  Weakly-proving a board game is not.

well awesome possum might think weakly proving a board game is semantics ? but I would say the solution would be a thinking process - hence logic - so making a statement saying you cannot go to miami sitting in a house shows faulty logic - starters should have it that any statement such as that could not should not be logically refuted - 

None of this answers Deirdre's third question. In the first example, both of the second moves may not be blunders, but they seem like very, very bad moves. I cant imagine any computer or highly rated player would ever play those moves. So once either of those bad moves are played, it's no longer sensible to say it's a draw because the other side now has a big advantage.

I know it's not good to feed the troll, but I had to point out the fallacy here.

"One can argue that any one of the retreating knight moves from that scenario was weak and thus not perfect, and indeed by some engine-evaluation metrics surely is, but you cannot prove that any flaw occurred; a single weak move by itself does not throw the round (lower the theoretical score of the round, which did not happen on 6...Nb8 either if chess does indeed guarantee a draw with perfect play from starting-position at turn0). "

You claim that "a single weak move does not throw the round". This claim assumes that chess is a draw with near-perfect play. As such, what you've shown is: "Assuming that chess is a draw with perfect play, chess is a draw with perfect play". That's... not particularly difficult to prove.

More intellectual fodder for the astute mind:

"Thus everything contributes to spreading confusion" - Albert Camus, philosopher