A perfect game of chess is always a draw. Discuss.

What is the chess starting position if not contrived?

Your logic makes no mention of any particular attribute of the chess starting position that would distinguish it from the starting position for those games (and I posted another 36 games for you from other positions before).

The only difference as far as you are concerned is that from my position we know the facts from Syzygy and you find that inconvenient.

The ICCF WC Finals games at 5 days/move average and jockeyed by an ICCF (grand)master are in fact worthless for the purpose of the discussion because we know neither the game theoretic value of the starting position nor where the blunders are.

I think it's known that it's a draw. You can't argue that it's known that it's not known ...

Yes I can (and do).

@81

"we know neither the game theoretic value of the starting position" ++ We know: a draw

"nor where the blunders are" ++ We know: nowhere.

You know.

But then you know that the Black to win position I posted on the first page is a draw and the games contain no errors.

I prefer Syzygy.

@85

"1 second per ply" is not even blitzing, it is bullet speed.
The ICCF World Championship Finals is 5 days average per move and with better engines.

1 second up to 3/4 hour to be correct.

If you can't adjust your thinking to facts you shouldn't expect to come up with anything useful.

The problem is a mathematical one and you're still thinking in terms of practical play. Ask yourself where the time spent calculating appears in your argument.

None of your arguments are relevant. Your complaining about what you think tygxc can know or not know doesn't address the question of whether a perfect game of chess will result in a draw. tygxc might claim to know what his name is and which horse will win the 3:15 at Haydock. You should be able to figure out what the rest of the argument is.

If you can't, they're incommensurate.

"Your complaining about what you think tygxc can know or not know doesn't address the question of whether a perfect game of chess will result in a draw."

Neither was it intended to. Only to discount @tygxc's argument.

I think that it's impossible to prove the claim that we know that chess is a draw to be incorrect, unless chess is proven by some means not to be drawn with best play. So, you can make the claim that we can't know that chess is drawn but you can't expect your argument to be accepted. Some might accept it but they'd be accepting it without proof. So really, you can only convince some of those without logical ability.

I can't prove that you haven't privately come up with a mathematically sound demonstration that some version of chess is a draw (the topic is ambiguous as to which). So as you say, I can't prove the claim that you know that chess (at least some version) is a draw to be incorrect.

In the absence of your making such a demonstration public, I can, however, challenge your statement that you know.

I think you make much of "versions of chess" in order to create ambiguity. Try to talk in general terms, which means ignoring 75 move rules. Logically, "versions of chess" doesn't relate to this argument since we're asking whether chess is a draw with best play. Not introducing an artificial rule and having to take that into account.

If the 75 move rule makes no difference then obviously ignore it. In the unlikely event that it makes a difference, it should be obvious even to a toothless gopher that it still has to be jettisoned in the interest of an honest assessment. You can add the caveat "not within the 75 move rule" later if it's wished. So you can forget the "versions of chess" disingenuation.

@87

"where the time spent calculating appears"
++ The initial position is a draw. In 97 games 17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines tried at 5 days/move with good engines to win as white and to draw as black. All white attempts to win failed and all black attempts to draw succeeded and in 97 different ways. Even if there were a pair of white & black mistakes in some game, there are backup plans to draw.

White tries 1 e4: Berlin, Open Ruy Lopez, Petrov, Najdorf, French all draw.
White tries 1 d4: Queen's Gambit Declined, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav Defense, Grünfeld Indian Defense, Nimzovich Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense all draw.
White tries 1 Nf3: both 1...d5 and 1...Nf6 draw.

In short:

You:
1 position
1 game
1 entity
1 entity / game
weak player
regular engine
1 s / move

Them:
Initial position
97 games
17 entities
2 entities/game
ICCF (grand)masters
top engines
5 days/move

If you would put up more time and a better engine and better jockey it, then you would also arrive in your contrived position to the same result as the 7-men endgame table base.
If you were to submit your position to 17 ICCF (grand)masters in a thematic tournament at 5 days/move, then they would also arrive at the same result as the 7-men endgame table base.
The discrepance you find between your engine blitz game and the 7-men endgame table base stems from you not using enough time/move.

In your beloved endgame KNN vs. KP your engine can only find a checkmate in say 50 moves if you allow the time to reach a depth of 100 ply.

@93

"If the 75 move rule makes no difference then obviously ignore it."
++ The 75-moves rule or the 50-moves rule make no difference at all.
In none of the ICCF WC Finals games is the 75-moves rule or the 50-moves rule ever invoked.
ICCF allows table base win claims that exceed 50 moves or 75 moves, but table base win claims never happen, only table base draw claims.
So the 75-moves rule and the 50-moves rule are to be ignored indeed, as if these did not exist. It is only a practical rule so that over the board games end in a reasonable time.

On the contrary the 3-fold repetition rule is essential and is a major drawing mechanism in many of the ICCF WC Finals' games. I presume that a change of this rule to: 'whoever repeats a position loses', like in Go or Stratego would make Chess a white win.

I've commented on some of you points, but the post is completely irrelevant.

You use not a single one of the points you mention in your argument purporting to show that chess (ICCF version) is a draw and the games are perfect under those rules.

The whole post is a long irrelevant bluster.

I didn't bother to bring up the three-fold repetition because it is, of course, completely irrelevant to this argument.

You just did.

@97

Yes, but MARattigan tends to lump the 50-moves rule, the 75-moves rule, the 3-fold repetition rule and the 5-fold repetition rule together under 'competition rules'.
The 3-fold repetition is essential, while the 50-moves rule can be ignored as if unwritten.

Again, this distraction regarding versions. I don't think either of us are interested in prolonging the distraction. It makes your argument all the more easily discountable, since it's obvious distraction. If you were to wish to continue using it, you would need to show that it has meaning. You've never attempted to do that for years.