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

it's ok, no 1 bothEred to read it...

The way you are using "error" is different from the way I have been using it. You are using "error" to denote a move that changes the game assessment to a lower outcome. Thus, if an error first occurs, the person who committed the error is losing. If the opponent fails to take advantage of the error, they commit another error in so doing and the game is drawn again. Therefore, all games with an even number of errors are drawn.

However, you seem to be a victim of your own confusing nomenclature. I do agree with the idea that if the game asssessment of chess is won and 95 top ranked games consecutively end in draws, then they must have all contained an odd number of errors but that isn't a clear way to explain your reasoning. It's sufficient to assert, and it means the same thing, that it's absurd that 95 top ranked games in a row have defied the game assessment to end in draws, if the game assessment of the initial position is a win.

The confusing way you continue to speak has been your trouble all along. People are not understanding you because you continue to use this pompous sounding jargon and add unnecessary parts to the argument. It doesn't help the argument to talk in terms of odd and even numbers of errors. It hinders it quite a lot. MAR is no help because he's also been drawn in to the same kind of nonsense and he talks rubbish obsessively, too.

There is also another problem with your use of "error" in that sense, since chess players think in human terms regarding error. An error is a move which significantly makes the desired result harder to obtain, to probably all chess players. It isn't a move that changes the game assessment. A blunder is a move that changes the game assessment.

So all this time, I didn't even bother to think about the odd and even numbers of errors. To me it was obvious nonsense. Now I finally thought about it for a couple of minutes, albeit after maybe 10 years, it's clear that the use of "error" is entirely unsatisfactory for a different reason. You're using it to mean a different thing from what virtually all chess players mean by it. An error is what Chess.com calls an inaccuracy. That's pompous too, of course, since it's obvious that the engine can't assess what is accurate play and what isn't. The engines make a lot of mistakes in deeply positional games.

I know.  But at least I've finally sorted out all this nonsense on this thread.

@142

"You are using "error" to denote a move that changes the game assessment to a lower outcome." ++ Yes

"Thus, if an error first occurs, the person who commited the error is losing."
++ Yes, if chess is a draw. If chess is not a draw, then it leads to a draw.

"If the opponent fails to take advantage of the error they commit another error in so doing and the game is drawn again."
++ Yes, if chess is a draw. If chess is not a draw then it leads to a decisive game.

"Therefore, all games with an even number of errors are drawn." ++ Yes, if chess is a draw.
If chess is not a draw all games with an even number of errors are decisive.

"However, you're now claiming..." ++ No

I observe that all 97 games of the ongoing ICCF WC finals are draws.
If chess is not a draw, then these games must contain an odd number of errors: 1, 3, 5, 7.
None of those games contain 0, 2, 4...
That is absurd

"I do agree with the idea that if chess is won and 95 top ranked games consecutively end in draws then they must have all contained an odd number of errors" ++ Yes

The absurdity is that the distribution of number of errors would magically skip the even numbers of errors:

0 error: 0
1 error: 97 - x - y
2 errors: 0
3 errors: x
4 errors: 0
5 errors: y
6 errors: 0

Thus chess must be a draw.

Likewise it is absurd that the distribution of errors would magically skip the odd numbers:
0 errors: 97 - x - y
1 error: 0
2 errors: x
3 errors: 0
4 errors: y 
5 errors: 0

Thus the distribution of errors must be:
0 errors: 97
1 error: 0
2 errors: 0
3 errors: 0
4 errors: 0
5 errors: 0
6 errors: 0

Thus all 97 games are perfect games with no errors.

It's obviously true so long as both players are random legal move generators. (But I should have phrased it, "Random legal move generators will generally produce 100% draws".)

See the games in my next response to @tygxc. SF8 is essentially emulating a random legal move generator in those.

Did you called me?

True

@143

"There is also another problem with your use of "error" in that sense" ++ I defined it.

"chess players think in human terms regarding error"
++ No. 'I have attached question marks to the moves which change a winning position into a drawn game, or a drawn position into a losing one, according to my judgment; a move which changes a winning game into a losing one deserves two question marks ... I have distributed question marks in brackets to moves which are obviously inaccurate and significantly increase the difficulty of the player's task ... There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator.' - GM Hübner

"An error is a move which significantly makes the desired result harder to obtain"
++ No, harder to obtain is subjective.

"A blunder is a move that changes the game assessment." ++ No, blunder is win to loss.

"An error is what Chess.com calls an inaccuracy."
++ No. Inaccuracies do not exist. Either a move changes the game state or it does not.
If it changes the game state, then it is an error. If it does not, then it is not inaccurate.

"the engine can't assess what is accurate play and what isn't"
++ The engine cannot, but the final outcome win/draw/loss can in retrospect.

"The engines make a lot of mistakes in deeply positional games"
++ Yes, but less so with more time and better human guidance.
With unlimited time they would make no error at all, as chess is a finite game.

If anticipated without also

You don't half sweat a lot up there

hm?

If you think I got my age with such conditions and pressure and stress and the rest without sweat or any argument that you want, then sir, I believe you are wrong.

I noticed the nationality, my half bro was adopted by Crawatians and speaks perfect Albanese. He did formidable and still does military action. He never mentioned any sweat to me...

Time is key and behold the account shut outs etc..

I found the lessons useful, when we talk about time as rapid or blitz etc

@146

"SF8 is essentially emulating a random legal move generator"
++ The lower rating, fast time control tournaments emulate a random legal move generator.
Their tournament tables are full of 1 and 0, and almost no 1/2.

err0r909 it was not a reply on your post

sorry if I was somehow offensive brother.

All good brother