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

We can only play perfectly in very simple positions, even mildly more complicated endgames escape our ability to play optimally, KNNKP,KBBKN and sometimes KRNKN.

Your argument is inductive in nature, not deductive.

And I myself am studying mathematics at college (as in, the career of mathematics) and I think your text is just a mubled mess.

I thought we knew the first move IS a winning advantage. Isn't it something like white wins 55% of non drawn games? To me that seems like a huge advantage. I would think as computers and people get better that number would go down until it gets to about 50/50. But it's not going down. I agree most games end in draws, but when it's not a draw, white wins more. That seems important. 

You also asked in another post at what point does a winning line of play start. Why not the first move? Instead of the first move advantage slowly disappearing what if it's the opposite? What if the advantage builds until it's a forced win? Maybe with all the countless trillions of possibilities nobody has found that line (or lines) yet. It seems like most games of chess, either by people or computers, follow almost the exact same path. Opening theory and all that, most games go the same way until the middlegame where things change. What if people and computers simply aren't good enough yet to find that middlegame turning point? 

Patriot   No, we do NOT know that the first move is a winning advantage. 

It is also untrue that most games end in draws.  Most games are played by humans who make many mistakes in one game and such games usually do not end in draws.

The fact that in most  non draw games White has about a 55% winning shows that White has an edge in practical play but the fact is that this 55% remains somewhat static is something we would expect because of the first move practical advantage.   As computers become stronger and then all computers become about equal--you will see that 55% head closer and closer to 50%.  

One thing that is obvious--at the highest human play---as players become stronger--

there are less and less draws.  This is easily seen by looking at the records or World Championship matches

opti, I never said a word about  politics,  Read all my posts before you criticize.  Than you.

Bacon is the one who talked about voting, not me. Read it.

If a winning line was possible from move one--it is possible that someone or some computer might have found it in the hundreds of billions games played? Not to mention the millions of years of calculation... 

I have won the vast majority of my games vs masters and all my games vs grand masters but there was not one game I won where I could not point out the losing mistakes of my opponents. 

Games are only won or lost when a mistake is made.

If your argument is inductive then there's nothing to discuss here, proofs aren't inductive in nature.

Science isn't deductive which I find surprising you don't know given the fact that you said you were a philosopher in degree.

And I never made any claims on the game state of chess, I'm just enphasizing the fact that we simply don't know and there only flimsy speculations floating around.

Also, you can provide a deductive argument (checkers is an example), if it's feasable is another story.

You can walk above a gold mine and never know it was there, you are also underestimating the size of the game tree in chess.

It seems more likely to me that chess is actually a forced win for Black.  Obviously, in being forced to move first, White must upset the equilibrium of an otherwise perfectly balanced position.

Twenty possible initial moves for White--and yet each, tragically, weakening in its own way. A sufficiently capable Black, whose strategic subtlety we can only imagine, could take advantage of this, and slowly and implacably, and with impeccable technique, administer inescapable punishment, culminating in checkmate.  Essentially, when the board is set up for play White is in Zugzwang.

:: sigh :: If only White could simply say "I pass" instead of making a move.  Black in turn could say "I pass," and then the pieces, still arrayed in their beautiful and perfect initial configuration, could be returned to the box unscathed.  The players could then exchange mutual congratulations and retire to have a brandy.  But no; by the ineluctably cruel rules of the game, the ritual bloodshed must ensue.

It is a harsh world.

I agree with you on that. I also think all games are won or lost because of mistakes. I also think all games are drawn because of mistakes (roughly equal amount of mistakes on both sides).

What I wonder about is a thousand years from now when computers are far more advanced than they are now. Right now, computers are very primitive, and cannot figure out if the game of chess is a forced win or always a draw with the right moves. Already humans cannot play better than computers, so what humans do doesn't even count when trying to figure out if chess is a draw. As time goes by computers get better and better. So even now (as always) computers make huge mistakes. So how can we really know the answer to this if the only thing we are going by is computers, or people, who do nothing but make huge mistakes all the time?

Ponz, I agree with Prometheus on this one. The number of possible chess games, and moves, is huge. From what I understand, hundreds of billions of games played and millions of years of calculation are incredibly tiny fractions of what possibly exists. I'm sure some chess geek can figure it out a lot better than I can, but the numbers you say are probably a trillionth or less of what possibly exists. What if the answer exists somewhere in what hasn't been discovered?

how can you access puzzle rush ?

lol

Nobody can make a proof out of what you said because it is an inductive argument, how many times do I need to say this?

For the record, I had a perfect reading score in my IELTS test so I know perfectly well how to read.

The rest of your post is a proyection, nothing with substance.

And where is the proof of that bolded part? You do understand that'd mean chess is a draw right?

This is not a level and logical discussion.  People are criticizing language skills from people who speak and write English very well, hurling insults.  Why?  only because they want to force their view in, instead of conceding the other viewpoints suggested are equally valid.  

Further, I am amazed at the misquoting going on, some one  said that someone  said that....This is being used to say things, to attack people for things that were  never even said.

Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion, which is too one-sided to be a  true discussion.  But I will repeat what I said so newcomers to it may know what I said.  

No human is perfect and cannot play perfect chess by any definition of perfect.  As Pat pointed out, chess masters cannot play as well as computers, so what they say or believe does not matter.  I am comfortable with the uncertainty.

Slow down...Take your time...and learn to navigate the site.

21 days of rapid, bullet, and blitz, and yet you cannot find puzzle rush?