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

No, you keep right on saying it. It's funny. Would you say that you are a nihilist or a solipsist?

Would you say it's a proven fact that if you were to fall out of your upstairs window, without quite a big wind in an upwards direction, your trajectory would be downwards? Or are you claiming that gravity doesn't apply to you because you never personally tried that test on yourself? Because that's what you're saying .... that observations are useless compared with "deduction". And yet, deduction depends on observations .... otherwise, there's nothing to deduce. You just end up like the rationalist philosophers in that case .... inventing reality out of thin air and making deductions from your dreams.

This is why a proof is paramount, otherwise we can only believe.>>

I don't think there's any qualitative difference between truth and belief. Logical positivists tend to think there's all the difference in the world. A logical positivist over-simplifies the relationship between evidence and knowledge. They tend to imagine that all belief is bad and all knowledge is good. They don't understand that people can only believe that they know something. Sometimes that belief is more justified than at other times, which leads to the idea of justification of all truth claims. Ultimately we believe that we're right when we think we're right. Knowledge is highly confirmed belief. The Platonic or Socratic belief that knowledge is highly confirmed belief *which is true* is incorrect, since the criterion "which is true" introduces a recursive factor which some philosophers would call "vicious" in that it clearly refers to itself in order to justify itself. In other words, we're trying to understand how to define something that's true, and all we get is "something is true when it's true". So the Platonic definition of truth is incorrect.

You are mixing different definitions of believe in your post, believing something blindly is different from believing something with proof. I'd like to see the face of any mathematician who heard what you just said.>>

Oh, so mathematicians know the definitions of all words, do they? You don't half talk rubbish. Occasionally you seem to be making an effort and then it all goes haywire again. I've an idea. Pretend you're here to learn about things, for a change.

Learn for a change? Yeah a rather terrible change given the fact that you try to associate inductive arguments with proofs and pretend that not having a proof is not an issue in your assesment.

What you just said is the same as  .... oh, what's the use. You're the one who's qualifying the word "belief" with different adverbs, like "blindly". Just try to follow what's been said instead of inventing it and criticising your own invention.

I mentioned the belief thingy because you had made an equivocation fallacy by mixing them up. Blindly was used to describe one such definition.

I have a cousin who lives in Tasmania and he's a complete pillock who thinks he's really clever. He started following me round Facebook and criticising my politics. He's very right wing. In the end, I gave up on him and I called him "turnip knees", totally out of thin air. I was just playing. Do you know, it had a profound effect on him. He immediately went completely mad, wrote two paragraphs of angry drivel and then blocked me and I haven't had trouble with him since. You better hadn't force me to call you turnip-knees. 

Oh call me anything, I won't leave you alone parroting stupid things.

If I rephrase it to "there's no qualitative difference between knowledge and belief", would that be clearer and more acceptable? I should really have written that, to be accurate.

Have you had mental health issues? For my part I won't make things worse by answering you again. All the best.

I'm probably stupid but I want to comment on your criticism regarding what you call an "equivocation fallacy". Logical fallacies like that only apply to propositions in formal logic. Obviously, I am not setting out my argument in formal logic. I'm using normal speech, where, in fact, words can and do sometimes have different meanings according to context. I think you are very concerned with (one might even say "obsessed with") the idea of proof and mathematics. I was trying to explain the difference between a deductive sequence, where propositions may be made that are considered to be fixed givens and an effort is made to derive further statements as a strictly logical effect of the logical causes and a more loose, less formal way of thinking which can be very effective.

So that kind of linear, deductive logic produces conclusions which are already logically contained in the propositions. Deductive logic is very powerful in its limited way but without the understanding of the world which we get by considering observations of regular causality, it would be impotent because it would have nothing useful to work with. You say that chess is an abstract problem and yet you reject the abstract logic that I was using to explain why no forced win is possible from move one. You seem to think that because you cannot imagine a proof of why the impossible should be impossible, then the impossible becomes possible.

I wish to be friends with you. I apologise if anything I have written has caused you anger or irritation.

I do mean it. Also, I'll tell you why you're wrong in saying (chess is) not natural science. Because chess is such a difficult game, basically, and because it tends to defy attempts to fully understand it and because it tends to come up with surprising results or effects, it's quite like a natural science in that way.

Anyway, I was never any good at mathematics although as a child I was a prodigy at mental arithmetic. But arithmetic isn't mathematics. I did get an English "A" level in mathematics, though. That would have been around 1970. My wife couldn't even do arithmetic well even though she is intelligent and yet, between us, we managed somehow to produce a son who is being called a mathematical genius. https://be.linkedin.com/in/edmundgeorgebennett

Well, I'm sorry that you're so self-obsessed that you can't see when someone is trying to be friendly. Now I really do give up on you where I had thought there was hope. There isn't because your self-defence mechanisms constantly cause you to be mindlessly passive-aggressive. Blocked, for what it's worth.

How do you know that it was not a mistake to offer/accept the draw? Nobody knows the result of best play from that situation. The game may have no mistakes, but we do not know that. It is possible (although unlikely) that all six playing decisions were mistakes in that game.

According to Max Euwe only one inaccurate move is not enough to actually lose a game. Mostly you are able to repaire this and keep it a draw. Mostly a second decisive mistake is necessary to actual lose it. And that means that a perfect game is not even necessary. In general GMs knows that a chess game can not be won without a mistake of the opponent. And scientific absolute prove is not available. But this is also not really necessary.

The game of chess is not out analysed nore solved by the Computer. And I doubt it ever will in any case not as long I live. But if it ever would solve it then the conclusion would be:  White plays and on every possible move of white black can draw on several ways. Yes even on several ways! Thus no perfect game is required.

No you didn't. I gave up trying to be nice to an idiot, that's all.

Well, I'm sorry that you're so self-obsessed that you can't see when someone is trying to be friendly. Now I really do give up on you where I had thought there was hope. There isn't because your self-defence mechanisms constantly cause you to be mindlessly passive-aggressive. Blocked, for what it's worth.