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

There is absolutely no evidence that chess is a draw with perfect play.

I could stop here arguing with you, but let's go into detail...

If 2 players with rating of say 100 played each other and drew would that imply that it was perfect chess??

No

But yet you say it is when Grand masters do it is perfect play.

I did not say that.

( I am assuming you meant to say there is overwhelming evidence that chess is a draw with perfect play hence there is statastical evidence)

You can 'assume' what you want, but it is not what I meant. I OBVIOUSLY meant that hundreds of thousands of games in books, databases, that have been analysed in and out, a good number of them later again with engines, thus covering a lot of typical positions from opening, middle game and end game, show that an advantage (materially or positionally) is often not enough for a win. It gives a statistical evidence that chess is a draw.

Also there is a problem with replacing overwhelming evidence with statastical evidence.

For example

The evidence that anand is better than me is overwhelming but there is no statastical evidence as we haven't played each other yet.

I did not talk about statistical evdidence for the fact that anand is better than you, lol. Your  wishful argumentation makes it difficult to answer.

 It is clear that ponz' evidence comes from assuming a significance of available games (no matter how few those are compared to the total number of possible games). I tried to translate this into Math terms.  

Also statastical evidence is probably not tru unless it is rigged.

If you flip a coin 100 times and it falls head 90 times that is not evidence that it is most likely going to be heads the next time.The odds are still 50-50 unless the coin is rigged to fall heads and unless you know wether it is rigged or not 50-50 is your best bet.

Same way unless we know wether perfect play is better for black or white we can not make predictions based on statistics since it can be a mere co incedence.

btickler, instead of just saying I am wrong--show how I am wrong.

shockinn

I am not asking anone to look at billions of games. 

Please consider--if the were a game like this it would stand out above all other games and the grandmasters and supergrandmasters would all be somewhat proven to be wrong.  So far, after hundreds of years and millions of people playing chess--there is no such game!

Also, grandmasters and super grandmasters can look at a game and know if it is a game without any mistake--i.e. a perfect game.  The best chess engines can also do this.   

Mistakes in chess are easily noted and found by the very best playerss and the very best chess engines.

I know many do not believe this but the more proficient you are in chess the more likely you will understand and believe this.

 The assumption in the experiment with coins is that the probability for a head is 0.5 in every new try. This is further expressed in the 'law of large numbers' saying (in laymen terms) irrespective of an accidental occurrence of 90 heads out of 100 flips) that with larger numbers of flips the likelihood of a 50 % percentage of heads increases. 

I insist that this law is valid irrespective of an accidental occurrence of 90 heads out of 100 flips (btw, the probability for such accident is extremely small, much smaller that 0.001).

For chess games, we can make an assumption that the hundreds of thousands of MASTER games that have been analysed, are representative for the pool of ALL games, meaning that they cover a high percentage of strategems and motifs that will again appear, in similar form, in all remaining games (that have not yet been played).

The appearance of books that have to say something new about strategy of middle game, end game and opening - for the latter we have seen only some novelties that mostly do not change the evaluation of some known position - stagnates over the last twenty years. This justifies the above assumption.

Then the likelihood that chess is a draw, is high.  

JG you ask why would such a game stand out?  It would be because it would be the first game in history where there is such a line and it would also contradict the opinions of the best players in the world.

Ok. This whole thing about "A game" doesn't even make sense to me. Solving chess involves a tree of games, not 'a game' consider my earlier post deleted as nonsense... if it made sense to you, well, good for you. Your comment starting "it would be because it would be the game in history where there is such a line" strikes me as gibberish for the same reason.  

The issue is NOT proving that chess is a draw.  The question is True or False

Chess is a Draw with Perfect Play by both sides.  

This is an opinion poll then. Ok. My opinion it's a draw. That link I gave earlier includes the opinions of many strong chess players.  

To answer a question you do not have to 100% prove you are correct.

Um. That's like saying water is wet. Thanks for the tip. What is 2 + 2? You can answer that, "horseshoes' if you like. Who am I to stop you? 

Proof is a special category of certainty -- and "provability" is an interesting characteristic. People like me discussing: "can chess be proven drawn?" are attempting to take your question (Is chess drawn: true/false?) and turn it into something with a bit more to chew on. We aren't trying to prove anything. Our question solicits opinion too. Is "is chess drawn?" a solveable question? This is a more interesting question because it can be discussed with a bit more rigor. That doesn't mean proof. 

Example There is the Theory of Gravity and the Law of Gravity. Both of these are true and both have been tested over and over again. They both are true but it cannot be proven 100% that they are true.

Wow. That's really confused. Confused in more than one way. I don't know how to help you.

Chess, like math, is a pure abstraction. A constructed set of rules. It doesn't have contact with physical science and theories like evolution, special relativity, etc. Indeed, "Theory" the very word itself implies contingency. Something subject to disconfirmation. Finally, "theory of gravity" is a terrible example of something known...  there are many physical realities less contested than "gravity." 

"I don't know how to help you."

Oh no, the world is doomed because he made a comment that you think is poor.

why is that?

"Proof is a special category of certainty -- and "provability" is an interesting characteristic. People like me discussing: "can chess be proven drawn?" are attempting to take your question (Is chess drawn: true/false?) and turn it into something with a bit more to chew on."

Maybe there's some interesting element I'm missing, but actually it seems pretty answerable: of course we can't actually "prove" (as opposed to making a reasonable assumption) the answer because we would need a 32 piece tablebase. In fact that kind of seems to end the discussion right there, unless, again, there is some interesting element to this that I'm not seeing.

Well, it's just that you're acting as if he's some mental patient and you need to give him treatment or "help" because you happen to think his comment is silly.

I thought the problem was that a 32 piece tablebase is just way too much for computers to calculate, as well as store.