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

i am claiming to know that some mistakes have been made that current players and engines could not find. I have already found 2 positions which both players and the best engines did not find the solutions. There were errors in their thinking which caused them not to find the solutions but i found the solutions.

 Here is a 3rd such postion...

This is a serious question as I mean no offence, but are you a puppet account of ponz111?

The reason I ask is because you chime in periodically to nitpick everyone else while turning a blind eye to incredibly blatant fallacies on the part of ponz111. Okay, rhetorical question. 

So let me ask you this - straight out:

Do you agree that, today, it is perfectly knowable that countless "perfect" games have been played - games in which every move played was the perfect move to play? That even one hundred years from now, these "perfect games" will still be analyzed as perfect, move by move, no centipawn loss equal or greater...a truly perfect game with perfect moves by all understanding from now until the end of time?

Do you agree that countless numbers of such games have been played, and most importantly, do you agree that they can today be identified and known beyond doubt? Please answer.

USARMY  do you really want me to elaborate om my analysis of over 65 years. Sorry but it would take a year to do this. 

True.

 I’m more concerned with your claim that you can factually know if a game has been played with zero mistakes, none that could possibly be found later by a more powerful computer or if Chess were ever solved. 

 Sorry, bub. Your tap dancing isn’t going to work. 

You also keep bragging on yourself. Talking about how you've played at the GM level, about how much you know and see pertaining to chess.

That's lame. You say you're a senior but I would've never guessed you were a senior and I'm so very sorry to say that.

 I’m quite certain you didn’t spend 65 years analyzing those games.  I don’t need your whole life story. I just need you to elaborate on this so-called “analysis“ with specifics. 

 Because really, by “analysis“ you just mean wild freaking guess.

centipedes have no relevance as to perfect games. Even with the starting position--the centipedes for both sides vary. There have been tens of millions of draws where one side had a lot more centipedes.

 i recently forced a draw in  a game where i had 6 centipedes less than the other side.

[and this was against the best chess engines]

centipedes are a way of estimating practical chances--they are not a way to determine what is a perfect game.

This is a little insulting--do you really think i am that bad of a player? 

Um, I  think you just suggested that he could learn, in one year, what took you 65 years. To quote GM Ben Finegold, "very suspicious".

Well maybe not outright suggested, but in any case, I would hope it would take you longer than a year to effectively impart 65 years of knowledge and learning. 

 How well you play has nothing to do with the validity of your claim. You can know opening book like the back of your hand and have uncanny pattern recognition and still be wrong. 

 The mechanic I brought my Challenger to, who did the supercharger install and tune, he knows way more than me about auto mechanics.  But when I talked to him about horsepower from a physics standpoint, I knew way more than him.  I can explain from start to finish what horsepower is, how it’s derived, how it’s calculated and why, and how that applies to an engine. 

This is a similar situation here. 

i did not suggest any  such thing. and who is "he"?

Also  i did not say i could impart all my 65 years of knowledge and learning in one year.

no it is not a similar situation here. You really do not know more about chess than i do.

my chess analysis is not wild freaking guesses.

 Neither are my Chess analyses. But the notion that you, me, or anyone can possibly know  whether or not every single move within a game is a mistake is laughable. 

 If Magnus Carlson played Stockfish or Komodo 10,000 times on a powerful platform and their hardest setting, the score would be 0 - 10,000. 

 Which pretty much shows even the greatest player in the world makes mistakes and blunders in all of his games, ones that regular humans are seldom able to identify and exploit. 

It was obviously in jest. You're so busy building yourself up to such a degree - I just figured a year seems such a small window with which to work, for one so very enlightened as yourself.

False. You can force a draw in many variety of situations which may not be best play after all.

Chess is not a draw with best play from both sides. Rather, it is the use of ability to win. It is yet to be determined whether chess has a best play after all. 

It is simply not true that the greatest human player blunders in all of his games.

It is true that in a long game i might miss a mistake. However in a very short game i will not miss a mistake.

It is true i have played very short games where neither side made an error.

I've read most of the last 5 pages. It just seems to me that US Army and Losing make a lot more sense. To me it makes no difference if a grandmaster, or one of us here, says they "know" chess is a draw or forced win. They dont know. They think they know, they wish, they believe, they want. But they dont know. A grandmaster will probably say he firmly believes chess is a draw with best play. But compared to perfection, a grandmaster is a bumbling beginner so his opinion isn't worth any more than ours. I think a perfect game, or best play, means not only no errros, but no room for improvement. So to me, that means there is literally no possible way (yet) for any of us to know what best play or perfection is. It's never happened. Only the game that is played 1. draw agreed is perfect because no moves were played. Once something like 1.e4 is played it becomes all speculation. No one (human or machine) KNOWS if that or any additional moves are perfect.

Actually how well i play has something to do with the validity of my 2 claims. It is part of a whole lot of circumstantial evidence.

When all that circumstantial evidence is seen and understood--it proves my 2 claims.

Because someone does not understand the circumstantial evidence does not mean the 2 claims are not true.

SmyslovFan and i are two different people.