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

For the most part, people believe the game is a draw or white wins. The prospect of black winning seems foreign to many, and I assume there would be many opposes to this concept. Fischer always fought for the win with black. Magnus fights for the win with black, unless he wants to conserve energy and be okay in a tournament with a draw. 

No offense, but you are dead wrong, and your excuse is one used by a mediocre player who can't play good chess when he has a "bad" day. Chess is one of the few complex games which is balanced (equal I would argue). It is pure skill. Physical elements like fatigue always play in. Social elements play in. If someone was just divorced and he played bad chess, that isn't "lucky" for the other player, it just means that the person who lost his wife is weak and can't separate his chess and personal life. Wins are always earned. If you win against a grandmaster, it isn't luck. You calculate. You are always trying. It's impossible not to try in chess.

The flaw in your pawn reasoning, is that long term pawn play is part of strategy. Pawns are a key part of the endgame, and those who cannot completely understand the position and prepare their pawns throughout the game inevitably lose.

This isn't luck. You should be able to play all openings perfectly fine if you're any good. Pure skill.

No offense taken. There is no reason to be offended by something like talking about luck in chess. I know I am a mediocre chess player. My rating is only about 1800 so I know I will never be very good compred to someone who actually is good. But I also know luck plays a part in chess, just as it plays a part in any human activity whether we recognize it or not.

I suppose two computers playing each other might have little or no luck. But even the conditions you described (physical elements, fatigue, social elements, one player just divorced, et) are luck. They certainly are not skill. I think skill is something you have control over. If one side benefits (or loses) because of some unplanned, random, or unpredictable event that's luck. It might be good luck or bad luck, but it's still luck. If two players are equal, and all conditions are equal, and they play a game that's equal, then suddenly half way through the game player A develops a severe headache and isn't even able to finish the game that has nothing to do with the skill by player B and it's not really about the skill of player A either. It's just bad luck (or good luck for player B)

Wow! You are way out of line!  I always fight to win with Black, in fact, I set a record in the United States which will never be broken by winning all my games with Black in a US Championship Finals.[correspondence chess before chess engines]

Trying to do well in chess has nothing to do with believing the game of chess is a theoretical draw. I believe the game of chess is a theoretical draw.

That you call people who believe chess is a draw as "haters" is  far out of line....Fischer knew the game of chess is a draw, Magnus knows the game of chess is a theoretical draw. Almost every grandmaster would tell you that the game of chess is a draw--are they "haters" because they believe this?? 

There is no person on this planet who plays all openings perfectly fine.

WHY I AM CONVINCED CHESS IS A DRAW WHEN NEITHER SIDE MAKES AN ERROR

1. The grandmasters assume chess is a draw. When they do their analysis from the opening position They know that White has a slight advantage but they also know it is nowhere near enough to force a win. Often when playing other players equal to them--they will try for a win with White and try for a draw with Black. But they know chess is a draw with best play.

[the stronger the player from Class D to Class A to master to grandmaster--the more likely the player will know chess is a draw.]

　Some have declared to me that I do not have proof that the top chess players assume the opening position is a draw. This is not correct. If you are a strong enough player all you need to do is to look at annotated games of grandmasters and supergrandmasters

and you will see this. Or you can listen to interviews of the top players and you will see they assume the opening position is a draw.

　I remember when checkers [also known as "draughts"] was assumed to be a draw by the top players. Some received a lot of vitriolic for their assumptions but were later proven correct when checkers was "solved".

　Here is a quote from cobra91 [on chess.com] which helps to sum up this point:

btickler wrote:

　Point made on TCEC, though increasing draw rates could definitely turn out to be a "false positive" type of test, since it only takes one narrow set of lines to force a win (or one, but I would highly doubt it could turn out to be just a single line in the entire tree).

　cobra91 replied:

　A forced win for White (or Black, for that matter) would not involve just a single line, or even just one narrow set of lines. It would require every single defense for one side to be refuted, which would mean that the best assessments that humanity can currently muster are wrong -- and not just wrong in one opening variation, but in dozens upon dozens of opening variations. Modern theory would have to be wrong about every single line ever analyzed, in fact, at least within the confines of what Black (or White) can opt for against the hypothetically winning moves (which would necessarily have to include several broad categories of openings, at the very least).

　A forced win for one side would also imply that existing theory has been regressing for quite some time now, at least in the "big picture" sense. Most of the significant breakthroughs in the computer era have been of the equalizing variety. In many lines where White was believed to have an advantage, defensive resources and/or counterplay opportunities are being found. Meanwhile, only the most dubious sidelines are even considered refuted, at the moment. As any serious correspondence player would tell you if asked, the paths to even a practical glimmer of an advantage appear to be getting slowly but surely closed off: https://www.iccf.com/event?id=52852

　2. From my 69 years of playing and studying chess, I know chess is a draw. Having played masters and grandmasters reinforces my view. Having studied the games of grandmasters and supergrandmasters reinforces my view.

　Having authored chess books and reading chess books reinforces my view. Looking at chess on youtube reinforces my view.

　Everything points one way--chess is a draw.

3. Looking back at World Championship Matches for the past 100 years we can see a progression. There are more and more draws played by these top players. This is because the fewer mistakes

there are--the more likely the game will end in a draw.

Over-the-board World Championship Matches: There has been a lot

of controversy over what was a World Championship match and even

sometimes--who was the World Champion? However it has become very clear from looking at matches and World Championship matches for the last 100 years that there have been more and more draws in these matches as players became stronger. This is also a very good indication that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error.

　4. ICCF Correspondence chess is about the strongest chess one can find. This is because there is a combination of a strong chess engine with a strong player.

　With the strong player to guide the strong chess engine the play is stronger than a chess engine alone. Top over-the-board grandmasters and supergrandmasters use the games from ICCF Correspondence in their study of chess openings.

　Looking at ICCF Correspondence Chess [it is now played with the help of chess engines]. We see a progression of more and more draws.

　When I played in the 7h USA Correspondence Chess Championship Final round--I had only 1 draw in 14 games. [13 wins, 1 draw, and no losses] 96.5% [I did not use a chess engine]   

　Now looking at a more recent winner of this event we find:

　16th USA Championship winner had 5 wins, 1 loss, and 6 draws.

[8 points out of 12] 66.67%

Looking at ICCF Correspondence World Championships Finals we find:

　13th World Championship Finals winner had 10 wins and 6 draws [13 out of 16] 81.25%

16th World Championship Finals winner had 8 wins and 8 draws [12 out of 16] 75%

22nd World Championship Finals winner had 7 wins and 9 draws [11 1/2 out of 16] 71.8%

25th World Championship Finals winner had 5 wins and 10 draws [10 out of 15] 66.67%

26th World Championship Finals winner had 5 wins and 11 draws [10 1/2 out of 16] 65.6%

27th World Championship Finals winner had 3 wins and 13 draws! [9 1/2 out of 16] 59.4%

28th World Championship Finals winner had 5 wins and 11 draws [10 1/2 out of 16] 65.6%

Here is a cross table of the Final Round of the Latest ICCF World Championship Match [the 29th]

　1 RUS 140915 GM Dronov, Aleksandr Surenovich 2676

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 9.5 out of 16

2 POL 420563 SIM Oskulski, Jacek 2528

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 9.0 out of 16

3 CRO 900070 GM Ljubicic, Leonardo 2604

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 9.0 out of 16

4 POR 390086 GM Neto, Horácio 2602

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ . ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 8.5 out of 16

5 ENG 211305 GM Robson, Nigel 2619

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8.5 out of 16

6 ITA 240090 GM Finocchiaro, Fabio 2606

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 8.5 out of 16

7 ROU 440534 GM Serban, Florin 2635

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 8.5 out of 16

8 GER 82299 SIM Schwetlick, Thomas 2466

½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 8.0 out of 16

9 ITA 249221 GM Vassia, Elio 2618

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8.0 out of 16

10 SLO 480135 GM Borštnik, Aleš 2583

½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8.0 out of 16

11 GER 83246 GM Mahling, Thomas 2575

½ ½ ½ . ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.5 out of 16

12 GER 80888 GM Busemann, Stephan 2606

½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.5 out of 16

13 GER 81313 SIM Windhausen, Georg 2505

0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½A ½ 7.5 out of 16

14 ESP 160468 GM Manso Gil, Ángel-Jerónimo 2567

½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.0 out of 16

15 POR 390473 GM Silva, António Augusto M. C. 2550

0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.0 out of 16

16 RUS 141241 GM Turkov, Vladimir Sergeevich 2533

½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½A ½ ½ ½ 6.5 out of 16

17 GER 81015 SIM Schmidt, Theo 2358

0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 6.5 out of 16

The winner of the 29th ICCF Correspondence Chess Championship

had 3 wins and 13 draws and no losses out of 16 games.

　The person who came in last place had 3 losses and 13 draws out of 16 games.

　Clearly as we have strong humans with strong chess engines--[known as Centaur Chess]-- Looking at the winners of the USA Correspondence Chess Championships and the winners of the World Correspondencce Chess Championships we notice as time goes by there are more and more draws. This is a clear indication that with chess played at high levels -- there are fewer and fewer mistakes and the results are coming out with more and more draws. 

　Recent Chess.com chess engine Match between Stockfish [rated 3400] and Houdini [rated 3407]

　This was a 20 game match between 2 very strong chess engines. There were 15 draws out of 20 games.

Stockfish won the match by a narrow margin--3 wins and 2 losses and the rest draws.

　I have personally looked at a couple of ICCF Corrspondence Chess crosstables between very strong players and found the winners had something like 10 draws and 2 wins and the bottom players of

these crosstable had something like 10 draws and 2 losses. And the players in the middle had 12 draws!!

　This is the strongest form of chess--even stronger than the best

chess engines. [it is well known that a human guiding a strong chess engine is stronger than just a chess engine without human guidance]

　All of this is very strong evidence that chess is a draw with best play [or when neither side makes an error] 

　5. There have been billions of chess games played in the last 200 years. There has not been one game out of all of these billions of games where it has been shown that either White or

Black won by force from the opening position. This is not a

coincidence. Clearly it is good evidence and more evidence that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. Believe me

if some chess player ever found a forced win from the opening position that person could use his knowledge to become a

multimillionaire.[and, sadly, chess itself might be diminished]

Now some will say that the billions of chess games played is only a very small percentage of the possible games which could be played.

This is true but looking at the zillions of chess games which could be played 99.9999999999999999999999999% of these games would be nonsense gsmes where both sides were making errors

almost every move. 1. a4 f6 2. Ra2 Kf7 ilk. [and worse as the game continues] Trillions [or more] games with 5 knights

or 6 bishops etc.

　Some do not like to admit this but chess playing in general has become stronger every decade for the past 200 years. Chess players are understanding more and more about chess.

The top chess players rated 2700 and above know a lot about chess--yes they lose to chess engines rated 3400 but think of the reasons they lose to these chess engines?

A human cannot calculate nearly as fast as a chess engine. A chess engine might calculate at a million positions a second.

This is a great advantage to a chess engine--to make a fair fight--give the human more time for each move--maybe 10 to 20

20 days for each move? And then there would be a lot of draws...[as happens in todays Correspondence Chess]

　Also a chess engine can go on and on--a human does not have that stamina. The current crop of top chess players know as much as

the top chess engines --it is just that they cannot think and calculate as fast.

　There are times when a human can solve chess positions better

than the best chess engines. A human can be creative and chess engines cannot. At the age of 75 I solved two problems [given by a chess grandmaster on chess.com] that the strongest chess engines could not solve.

　6. Here is another piece of evidence that chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake:

　It is sometimes quite hard to win in the endgame even with a pawn advantage. Sometimes being 2 pawns ahead is not enough to win. Sometimes 3 or 4 pawns up is not enough to win.　

Most of us know a king and 2 knights usually cannot force a win vs a lone king.　

There are positions where one side has a bishop and a protected pawn vs a lone king and cannot win.　

There are thousands of positions where one side has a king and 4 pieces against a lone king and cannot force a win.

Clearly this is another indication that it takes a lot to win a chess game...

My vote is "true but not directly provable at our level of capability".

Sorry but neither of the problems I solved [but the best chess engines could not solve] were closed positions.

And, yes, I did have creativity in solving those 2 problems.

And White is not in "zugzwang" in the opening position.

Ponz is on to something here.  This problem or possibility is very real.  I discuss and clarify this and it's sister dynamic which exists beyond current accepted understanding, in my book (read profile and blog and message if you want inside access).  I will give a hint, chess from the initial position is either zug for white or black by force.  I probably shouldn't give away that it results in 0 draws.  This state of zug literally causes that player to make mistakes by force of rule of obligation to move.  If someone doesn't understand this, they should reexamine this concept in a broad sense in order to see.  But yes, for now it's a draw with our current understanding of chess

Perhaps Back and White are in mutual Zugswang.

Stupid idea, I know. But, does any move "improve" a position? It does seem to me that the best we can do is not make it any worse.

But seriously, the idea that with "best play" it is a draw is the stated wisdom of any expert I have ever come across.

Another thought is that a rule which made it legal, as in Go, to not move might save one in certain positions.

Yet another is that if we refused to move under that rule, we would eventually lose in general. the exceptions would be insufficient material, except that two knights might be able to defeat a non mover. Ie that last statement true?

In general then, the ability to move is an advantage at any stage of the game..

False. White wins with perfect play from both sides.

So Waver Adams was right after all.

Freudian mouse slip.

Perhaps one player is in zug zwang in 4x4 checkers, not a stupid idea.  Perhaps either player is in zug in 99x99 checkers, not a stupid idea.  Perhaps one player is in zug in chess, not a stupid idea either!  If things are simple we see zug, if things are complex we say zug is unlikely.  Why?  Because we doubt what we can't see, but logically there is a good chance that the zug is there hiding beneath the surface, before move 1.