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

By the way a perfect game means all moves in the game were without error. Not "best" as there are many moves in almost any given position which are without error.

There is a difference between "best play" and "best move" In almost all positions there is no "best move" . I will give an example...

"Best play" means playing without error. "Best move" means finding one best move in a position--the problem with this is there are usually many moves in a position which will keep a draw.

What do you think the word “perfect” means?

Wrong. A GM is no wiser when it comes to solving chess than a bumbling retard rated at 240. We're about as close to solving chess as we are to learning 100% of the species of the deep. Not even .01% of the way there.

being entirely without fault or defect.

look at my last diagram it showed a position with several possible perfect moves.

@USArmyParatrooper, 

The problem of defining "perfection" in chess is that there are often more than one perfect move. If the idea is to find the fastest mate, there's often more than one path that leads to mate in the same number of moves. If the idea is to find the best defense, there are many ways that lead to stale positions. 

And that's the problem: Chess is a draw, but those arguing that chess isn't a draw will discount the countless paths to clear draws that have already been mapped out and suggest that a move had to be suboptimal. 

The old quote, that a player may play differently, but only lose differently comes to mind. Here's one line that has been played out. But did White really make any mistakes?

this forum is not about solving chess--if you wish to debate solving chess there is another forum for that.

You just love being argumentative. Pick a better fight because you're way off base here. 

I was simply responding to the comments in which people were talking about solving chess, even using the term "solving chess".

That said, if you can't see how "best play from both sides" is closely related to solving chess, then I certainly cannot help you.

You just love being argumentative. Pick a better fight because you're way off base here. 

I was simply responding to the comments in which people were talking about solving chess, even using the term "solving chess".

That said, if you can't see how "best play from both sides" is closely related to solving chess, then I certainly cannot help you.

You are correct that GMs and everybody else is a very long way from solving chess but everybody knows this and it is not the same as playing a perfect chess game.

it is an error to think solving chess [which may never happen] is the same or related to playing a chess game without errors [which has already happened in thousands of games]. Even class A players have played perfect games. It does not require solving chess to play a perfect game.

"best play by both sides" does not at all require "solving chess" but several posters seem to think it does require "solving chess". 

L&L81, 

Chess has been all but solved in a soft sense. That is, just about every expert on the game including GMs and computer chess experts agrees that chess is a draw with best play. Sure, there are amateurs on sites such as this who will argue til they're blue in the face it's not so. But the evidence is overwhelming. 

The onus is on those who claim all the experts are wrong. Show us just one forced win for White from move one. I can show many, many variations where neither side makes any mistakes, neither side upsets the balance, and the game ends in a short draw.

Exactly, as USAP pointed out, how do you know if a game was perfect? Chess has not been solved. Until it's solved, a refutation could be hidden literally anywhere. In fact, with what little we actually know, and as far as we still are from solving chess, calling a game "perfect" is tantamount to a blind man calling an aurora "beautiful".

That's the point, ponz111.

I do not need to "solve chess" to know that many games have been played with no errors and chess is a draw.

The evidence is overwhelming--because you cannot see the evidence does not mean the evidence is not there [and overwhelming]

Also because you may not know all the evidence does not mean the evidence is not there [and overwhelming]

I know this partially from my 65 years of playing chess. I learned some things in those 65 years. Also in addition to this there is a ton of other evidence that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error and also chess is a draw when neither side makes an error.

You just love being argumentative. Pick a better fight because you're way off base here. 

I was simply responding to the comments in which people were talking about solving chess, even using the term "solving chess".

That said, if you can't see how "best play from both sides" is closely related to solving chess, then I certainly cannot help you.

But I'll try by spelling it out for you: until chess is solved, "best play" is purely speculative and amounts to bupkis. Ergo, "best play from both sides" would itself be, and could only be, the result of solving chess.

I guess it's possible for a game to have best play and we just don't know it...but whether such a game is a draw or a win for either side, we cannot know, until chess is solved. Understand now?

@ ponz111 I couldn't disagree more. And if the evidence is overwhelming then I guess I'm just daft. Do you know what some of the evidence is??

\ Because I don't see any evidence at all. Well, you have a problem then. I see a ton of evidence

  Quite frankly, I think you're out of your gourd. If so, then so is about every grandmaster on earth.

You're saying that many perfect games have been played and actually have the balls to suggest this has been achieved many times. Yes, i do.

Then it should be easy enough to post but one single solitary example, wouldn't it? So post that perfect game - unless you're ready to admit that your firing from your ass. ok i will.

I am kinda curious as to how you would know whether or not a game was perfect...at your level, I mean.What do you think is my level?? 

There's been lines that were thought solid for a hundred years before a refutation found. Now this is true. I can give a line thought solid for a hundred years but proven false in a book i co authored. And it was only a 4 move line.

If you're using the latest software - forget about it. I am not using the latest software.

There are a myriad of positions in which Stockfish completely screws up...with a depth of x ply or more, flat out miss variations in which the solution required less ply. How is this possible?  chess engines can make mistakes. Because chess engines [or humans] can make mistakes does not mean that they cannot play a perfect game. 

And it happens all the time - take away the tablebases and Stockfish is little more than a glorified, brute force calculator and that's a fact. Alpha-Zero, emulating super-human level play, was able to win a nice chunk of the games played against Stockfish...and Stockfish is the best we've got. Not true at all--Alpha Zero is probably the best we got.

It's nowhere near good enough to call chess solved in any sense of the word.  That is obvious but as i keep saying--it is not necessary to "solve chess" to play a perfect game.

And it may be a hundred years or more before humanity can even conceive of such a device required to solve chess.you completely miss the point--it is not necessary to solve chess to play a perfect game!

And until chess is solved you might be 99% sure that a game was played perfectly...but you just can't know it. Depends on the definition of "know" I am not 100% sure of anything as i could be a part of someone's mind. However i am 99.99% sure that chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake.  Also, i am 99.99% sure that many perfect games have already been played.

You just cannot know it. I don't know what else to tell you. Speculation and "soft" solving is not at all scientific.  depends on what you mean by "scientific"

I won't call anything "perfect" until the calculation and analyzation by which we understand is likewise "pefrect".  Does not matter what you call "perfect" I am going by the dictionary definition of "perfect'