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

@ ponz111 Alpha-Zero is not a chess engine. So it's not the best we've got. Alpha-Zero is an AI. I said chess engines. And Stockfish is the best we have at the moment.

As for your example game - that was a real easy way out, dontcha think?  I'm not going to dispute that it's sound (though I would think objectively, 3. Bb5 is the stronger move).

3. Nc3 is a fine move. But... if chess were to be solved - that game may not be considered perfect anymore. Indeed, the reason why it's not could be hidden fifty or even a hundred moves deep. Maybe the c pawn needed to be advanced  at some point early on and Nc3 was a positional blunder with long term ramifications. Who knows? Not you, not me, not anybody. Not yet.

A thought: Suppose God got tired of making stars and planets and decided to play a game of chess? And suppose God played the game of chess against the best chess engine  He could find...And suppose that game ended in a draw...and suppose it was a perfect game...and suppose the game of chess had never been solved....

Would this mean God did not play a perfect game as the game of chess had never been solved??

Okay now you're just being silly. If you want to discuss the omnipotence paradox, find a theological board.

True but you have not responded to my 2 postings before post #2163

You mean the gish gallop? No thanks.

A game of volleyball will be continued until there is a winner, hence volleyball will result in a win with best play from both sides. As far as I know is this true in the US for basketball and baseball as well.

Three false, one true.:-)

The combination of exchanging the white coloured bishop by white and playing c3 without preparing it with d3 surprises me. I am not an expert at chess, but I would not never consider it playing. I would play d3 with the idea to play Re1, Nbd2 and Nf1.

One telling piece of evidence that chess is a draw if neither side makes a mistake is that after billions of games played nobody can point out  even one game where either White or Black won without a mistake being made.

There is, of course, a ton of other evidence...

ponz111 said: “I do not need to "solve chess" to know that many games have been played with no errors”

AGAIN, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT?

Been asked over and over. I’m growing a beard waiting for an answer.

I know this from the evidence. The accumulation of a very large amount of very good evidence.

Sometimes when there is overwhelming evidence that something is true--you can know it is true.

[i have told you this before--you chose to ignore it]

USArmy  Please read Wikipedia re Circumstantial Evidence.

Circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming to prove something.

 Such as? Name some evidence that games have been played with no mistakes.  And don’t give me that search for it yourself nonsense. You made the claim the onus is on you to substantiate it. 

Here is one piece of circumstantial evidence. There have been billions of games played and nobody can point to even one game that has been won without a mistake played. This is very good evidence that chess is a draw.

I am not asking You to search for a game won without a mistake by either side. The fact is that nobody in the history of chess has been able to do this.

Here is another piece of circumstantial evidence--it has been shown many times that in any given position it is very likely that there are SEVERAL optimum moves which lead to the theoretical result. I could give thousands of such positions myself it i had time and willingness to do this. 

Here is an other piece of evidence--my own chess playing experience.

Here is another piece of evidence--Practically ALL grandmasters believe chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake. Often games are drawn even with a material deficit. Practically all grandmasters believe they  have played some games where neither side made a mistake which would change the game from a draw to a win by either side.

There is a lot more evidence than what i related above.

By the way i already gave you a game i played without a mistake by either side which ended in a draw and was a perfect game--i could give more.

HOW DO YOU KNOW there were no mistakes by either side? 

This is my point of contention.  I already agree perfect play from both sides will likely end in a draw.  But you keep claiming all these games exist with no mistakes on either side, and there’s no possible way you can know that. 

ponz111 is correct. GMs have accepted for a long time that perfect chess is a draw despite white beginning with a third of a pawn advantage. I think this conjecture is evidenced by (and people have said this before) AlphaZero vs. Stockfish. Is it perfect chess? I'm not sure, I'm not a master. Is it probably the closest thing we've ever seen to perfect chess? Absolutely. Do they draw almost every time? Yes they do. Case closed if you ask me.

No dispute that’s probably true. That’s not my point of disagreement. 

Ah, gotcha. Perhaps the point of contention lies in differing definitions of "mistake?" Maybe his definition of "no mistakes by either side" is chess.com not labeling any move as a mistake in the post-game analysis. In this case, though, I'd say there are still plenty of small inaccuracies leading to tiny, even microscopic advantages (that turn to big advantages when compounded) that maybe you would call "mistakes." The 3400 elo Stockfish thinking 400 moves ahead would most likely agree with you, I think.