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

grandmasters know much more about chess than you or the other 2 gentlemen you mentioned.

And what someone said is not very relevant.

if you make no errors in a chess game there is no improvement you can make which will change the result of that game.

 Absolutely. And considering the worlds best chess players lose every time to the top engines, clearly nobody is playing perfect chess. 

 This is just the current engines that exists now, that haven’t even scratched the surface of solving Chess.  Imagine a super duper computer in the future that has actually solved chess.  What are the odds of a single human being able to draw against such a computer, even after 10 million games? 

The fact that chess engines are better than  humans has nothing to do with my claim that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error.

It also had nothing to do with the fact that perfect games [games with no errors by either side] have already been played.

Someone can be a rather poor player and still play a perfect game if the game is short enough. And in the last more than 100 years--a lot of such   games have been played. 

i am glad you seem to agree that "if you make no errors in a chess game there is no improvement you can make which will change the result of that game." We are making progress here!

“The fact that chess engines are better than humans has nothing to do with my claim that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error.”

 And as you’re well aware, I have not disputed that perfect play on both sides is likely a draw.  So we’ll just chalk that one up to intellectual dishonesty on your part. 

“It also had nothing to do with the fact that perfect games [games with no errors by either side] have already been played.”

 If humans are capable of playing perfect chess, they should be capable of at least drawing against the worlds top chess engine, configured in the most challenging manner, running on the most powerful platform. 

You also still haven’t explained how it’s possible for anyone to know if a game was played perfectly.  “From my experience“ is not an answer. 

USAP brings up a good point.

It keeps being repeated about perfection being a game in which no tangible, decisive error was committed. Yet show me a game between any two GMs in which such a game was played and I will show you two GMs that would've lost their asses had they been playing similarly against Stockfish. Seeing as how they, the GMs, were playing perfectly, a super-engine would've also played the same moves as either opponent, and the game would've drawn.

But it wouldn't have drawn. Not against a super-engine from the future, and not against Stockfish today. At some point, the engine(s) would disagree with one of the moves from the "perfect" game and play a line that leads to a win. And it would happen every single time, as there isn't a GM on the planet right now that can beat Stockfish with pawn-odds. And you saw how Alpha-Zero crushed Stockfish.

Talking about perfection in this day and time, with the current chessic understanding and technical knowledge, we might as well be talking about unicorns or "here be dragons".

I wonder what people in the distant future will think of ponz111's comments, if they find them when they look back over this relic that today we call the "internet". I'm sure he will appear quite foolish to them. Sort of the way a devout, dogmatic cosmologist appeared pre-Galileo. I'm talking hilarious, presumptuous, as-if, facepalming fail.

Ponz111 is quite figuratively standing in the middle of antiquity, proclaiming that the Earth is flat, and appealing to the authority of the latest witch doctors and goat herders for their thoughts on the matter.

I think ponz111 is a troll. 

By the way--regarding stockfish--a very good player with an engine can often beat stockfish. 

 Also, i have solved puzzles which stockfish could not solve [and i did this without help of a chess engine]

Komodo and stockfish are rated very close to each other.

ponz111: “wrong a perfect game is a game where no decisive error was committed.”

I love how you just casually added the qualifier “decisive” as if nobody would notice. ANY error is an imperfect move.

Even against the current strongest engines (at full strength) the world’s best chess players get clobbered EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. How does that happen without them making errors?

really??

Yeah I think so too. He’s either a troll, too intellectually dishonest to admit when he’s wrong, or incredibly dense. Whichever the case is reason enough not to entertain his nonsense anymore.

There is at least one very good player who posted here who does not agree with you. [besides me]

however i am getting a little tired of the name calling.

The best chess players get clobbered by the best chess engines because the best chess players make at least one error in their games.

One of the main reasons is stamina--humans do not have the stamina that engines have. Humans tire out and thus make mistakes.

Another reason calculating speed--humans cannot match the calculating speed of a chess engine.

By the way the fastest human runner will lose to a car also  

ponz111 is a sincere chess player who is willing to debate. He is definitely not a troll, on the contrairy.

The recent high percentage of draws in top level super grandmaster play is another indication that chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake!?

There is even a chance that chess is a forced win for black because of zugzwang.

Yes, you are correct, there is a chance that this is true.

There is also a chance that our sun will explode in the next week or so.

A game between two average players which ends up drawn means - more likely than not - that both sides failed to exploit golden opportunities, not that they played all of the best moves.

It would not change my perception of chess if it was proven to be a draw as i already know it is a draw.

However regarding your 2nd hypothesis--i would think i would have severe mental problems.