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

*quantum computing.

basically doing things exponentially faster than normal computers.

right now they aren't doing stuff more than simple multiplication.like reallyreallyreallyreallyfast.

"Of course, that has me presuming that I know what I'm talking about and am not utterly full of sh*t. But we all presume that about ourselves, don't we? Sometimes incorrectly, too ;). "

For me personally, I pretty much always keep the option open that the reason I may think another poster is totally wrong is because I myself don't understand its value.

Actually, I would argue it's natural to be sure of oneself when they are ignorant (I'm not directing this at you, just in general). All one has to do is find some idea that is outside of their sphere of understanding, and assume it's because that idea is silly, rather than that it's their incompetence that keeps them from being able to find the sense in it.

And of course some ideas may seem silly to me because they actually are. But again, I keep open other possibilities, as if it turns out they are right, I'll feel unfair for so authoritatively rejecting them. I don't want to take either approach to the extreme; I just want to be reasonably open minded.

To say that this is an understatement is... a vast understatement.

Self-quote from another thread:

"I'm not sure where the assumption of multiplying the size of an n-man tablebase by 64 to get the tablebase size for n+1 men comes from, but it surely doesn't seem sound. For instance, 4-man tablebases are almost 500 times larger than 3-man tablebases (Nalimov format).

3-man - ~63 KiB    (fits easily onto a single floppy)

4-man - ~30 MiB    (needs a few dozens of floppies, or a single CD)

5-man - ~7.05 GiB    (needs a dual-layer DVD)

6-man - ~1.2 TiB    (needs a 1.5TB HDD)

7-man - hundreds of TiB    (needs a small data center)

8-man - unknown, but probably on the order of tens of PiB    (would need a large data center)

9-man - ?

...

As for solving chess via tablebases, it will never happen. If every atom of matter comprising the Earth could hold a bit of data, it probably would not be enough to store full 16-man tablebases. As for complete 32-man tablebases, the matter in all of our galaxy, or even the Universe, might not suffice. The tablebases that have been created thus far, and likely those ever to be created, are a mere tip of an iceberg of sheerly unfathomable proportions."

There are three types of positions in chess: one where there is a forced win for White, one where there is a forced win for Black and one where there is no forced win from either side.

It is pretty certain that chess is not a forced win for Black from the start of the game. So, the question comes down to this: in the initial position is there a forced mate in xx moves for White? While it is true that chess has not been solved, humans have been at it for centuries, looking at hundreds and thousands of lines without finding any openings that provide a forcing win for White. Computers which can crunch millions of moves per second also do no find any such winning opening. Advantages tend to peter out with best play by Black and it is doubtful that and such lines exist.

So while it is not proven, I can say with 99.999% certainty that the opening position is not a forced win for either side.

You'll get no argument from me on this. I think your policies are sound ones.

I realize saying "I don't know how to help you" smacks of arrogance. I get that. I try not to be arrogant but sometimes it comes out anyway. And people read tone into things online even when one's intentions are truly harmless. It's all surviveable. 

What you are suggesting is generous and tolerant -- Good for you if you can always live up to such high standards! My personal policy is to try not to make personal attacks: don't call people stupid, liars, etc. 

Actually, I would argue it's natural to be sure of oneself when they are ignorant 

True! Reminds me of a line from W. B. Yeats' poem The Second Coming

   The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

White's theoretical advantage is basically equavilent to an opposite colored bishop (bishops only endgame) where white has an extra pawn, but no positional advantage.

Eric Fleet said it well.  We can not prove 100% but regardless it is 99.999% certain that the opening position is not a forced win for either side.

Those who want 100% proof before they make up their mind on the question posed do not appreciate the millions of games played by top players and chess engines.

You are over doing it.

It might be possible once quantum computing has advanced to use particles like quarks as q bits.

@  ponz

There is no proof or certainity that perfect chess is a draw.

It is more like 0.001%

Our current GMs might be complete patzers when playing against an opponent with perfect chess.

Statastical data means nothing unless we know wether it is rigged or is a coincedence.

quad guy  if you think there is  only about 0.001% chance that perfect chess is a draw--well what can I say??

are you  just trolling?

Ponz, how much longer are you going to keep this up? All was said. The points have been made ten times or more. Enough is enough imho. There is a time to let go.

Don't give up the good fight ponz!  Let the naysayers be damned!  Ummmm, I forgot which side of the discussion ponz was supporting.   

you have no proof of anything so I am allowed to assume that it is anything .

0.001% is pretty low.

50% maybe??

quadriple, I said that not only ideas in opening books but novelties in all phases in the chess game are in decline since 20 years. In fact, I have not seen any new strategic idea in chess during these years written down in books and articles.

This suggests, that EVERY new game to play can be understood by existing tools. This in turn means, that the games played until now are representative w.r.t. their strategic content for ALL POSSIBLE chess games.

  I emphasize, this is an assumption, you can reject it, if you want. But behind it is the belief of the overwhelming majority of GMs.

Based on this assumption, one may say that the likelihood that chess is a draw with best play from both sides , is very high.

Is 99.999% a made-up number to impress the crowd, or does it have some real mathematical back-up ? Thank you.

The fact that perfect proof (ie 32-men DB) is unavailable, and that we will not even have partial proof of any statistical significance, does not mean that we have the right to call hints "proof". "All games played so far" are only a very small fraction of the possible games, so the statistical evidence is low. It may be that White is winning by force after a 50-move long only-moves sequence and it is then very likely that no game (even out of millions) ever followed this path.

And the gravity analogy is just plainy wrong. Putting aside funny relativistic effects, it is an experimental theory - you could imagine a universe where the attraction force goes like 1/r^3 instead of 1/r^2, for instance, making ad hoc assumptions (and actually, such theories have been made). It does not mean that it does exist, and if someday we find some place where another theory is valid, then we will use this new theory.

Chess, on the other hand, is determined purely by the rules we put on it, so the only assumptions are about logical rules of deduction. Once the rules are clearly defined, the outcome is determined, and no event in the universe will change it.

There first will probably be a proof that it is not a forced win for black since it would seem that white could always waste a tempo at some point to

give up the first move (dis)advantage.

The question posed does not ask for 100% proof. 100% proof as in a 32 piece table base is not possible for  humans. 

I am quite satisfied , more than 99.9% that chess is a draw. This comes from my knowledge of chess. 

I do not care that this cannot be proven 100%.  

There will be no "proof" as some want.

99.9% is a number that you just think is right.

You have no proof that the number is that high.

We will have no idea what the percentage is until it is solved.

For the calculation of chances when the population is very big is statistics invented. Withing statistics there exists confidence intervals etc.. Based on those techniques can you calculate chances on events without the need of checking all events. Your statement that we need to know the solution of the 32 tablebase first is incorrect. The assessment of ponz111 on the ohter hand is indeed not a reliable number. But what would your numbers be? If I do that experiment myself, I end up with numbers close to that of ponz111. Do you?

Check out the other possibilities: what would you say is the chance that chess is a forced win for white? Or a forced win for black? That are the other possible solutions. The wins must be forced. Winning or losing by non forced errors, like I did in my last two games, is not relevant for the discussion. All those kind of games should be left out of the evaluation.

Is it also possible that the game of chess has more outcomes? That after perfect play the game can end in a win for white starting with one move and in a win for black starting with another move and being a draw starting with another move? How could we make the distinction which line is the perfect play?

Well, if the move to win would be 1.e4, then is Fisher right after all. But what if the move is 1. g4 or 1. b4?

If the move to draw would be 1.d4, then could ponz111 say he is right.

If the best move for a win of black would be a3 or h3, then is it clear that perfect play only started after the first move of white, but what if the move with a forced win for black is c4?

So, imagine the situation that after the English black has a forced win by perfect play, after 1.e4 white has a forced win after perfect play and after 1. d4 there is a forced draw after perfect play. What will be the conclusion?

Then chess would be a forced win for white.

Because he starts the game. He would start with e4 and win, no matter how black answers.

I think, you have not really thought about it, Loek.