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

Experts are not really "experts" they are just relatively better...  Even more apparent, masters are not masters, inasmuch as they have mastered, they still have not mastered many aspects.  Hard to believe, but true.  Masters are just relatively way better players with relatively way more understanding.  Still, I believe the strongest players are at the maximum thresholds of their misunderstandings.  The beginning of understanding, is stronger than the best players so far in history.  However, without the selfless teachings of the  masters of the past we wouldn't have been able to transcend their understanding, as is our inheritance of the future! 

If this is true, most computer games should result in draw.

Good point.

Excellent point, as well.  Thoroughly concise. 

I found this choice quote from PONZ111 similarly persuasive --

"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"

The games of the very top ICCF Correspondence players are more and more ending in a draw.

Recently I looked at a cross table of the final result of a tournament of very strong players.  The winner had something like 2 wins and 12 draws and no  loses. The players in the middle had 14 draws and no wins or losses. The players with the worse results had 2 losses and 12 draws.

EARLY draws are just for cowards. 

There are some fantastic draws out there.

I always play for a win even against grandmasters. Of course chess is a draw but we can all do well in practical chess. Because we are usually playing humans who make mistakes.

Its either white wins or a draw. Extremely hard to calculate!

My gut feeling is: Draw.

Not every advantage is enough to win. It's quite common to enter the middle game with a "pull" that lasts for many moves but ultimately amounts to nothing.

AMEN.  Let's all retire to the local pub and lift some glasses of Irish Ale.  

"May you live to be 100 years old, with an extra year to repent."  (Old Irish saying).

Chess is a draw unless one of the players makes a mistake and the other player punishes the mistake.

More than 99% of the grandmasters know chess is a draw... 

Chess is technically a win for White, by advanced number theory. The first player has a strategy that will assure a win for that side.

Ok, I'll bite. What advanced number theory are you referring to?

ZFC

Chess players are generally fairly good at math and can work whether the poster is full of ...himself.

Please explain which axioms of set theory you think apply that prove your claim.

Every zero-sum game means that White has a winning strategy that will always win with best play. Since White starts with +.1 or so, that means that White can win.

To win you need a minimal amount of advantage, call it X (X>0). Then any match than doesn't reach a +-X evaluation on any move, will be a draw. So you don't even have to play perfect every move to draw against an engine playing perfect, you can make little inaccuracies as, for example, you can draw oposite colour bishop endgame when one side has 2 extra pawns.