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

MAR

3 fold repetition is a draw if someone claims the draw. So if White plays Rf7 on the first move--it is not an error as the win is still forced.

Threefold repetition has not been one of the basic rules of chess since 2017. It remains in the competition rules. So the situation is different depending on whether competition rules are in effect or not.

When you say Rf7 is not an error on the first move you are repeating part of what I said. I stipulated a game under Basic Rules only, otherwise Rf7 would be an error if it allowed a claim under the threefold repetition rule. 

The term "perfect moves" is a rather ambiguous term.  Better would be to make a correct move or a move that does not change the theoretical result of the game for the worse,

I'm easy what you call it. We agree on the meaning. The term "perfect move" has been used in the discussion to date, apparently on the assumption that "best play from both sides" (in OP's phrase) means both sides make only correct moves. I was just pointing out that under basic rules, that is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for best play.

In the game described all moves by the players are correct, but White fails to win from a winning position, so his play is not best.

Either version of chess will result in a draw when neither side makes an error which would change the result of the game.

The previous sentence is not justified on two counts. Mainly you have assumed without proof that the game starts in a theoretically drawn position in both versions of chess. This is what OP was asking. Also in the basic version where there is no finite limitation on the sequence of moves it may be possible (as above) for neither side to make an error that would change the result of the game, yet that result does not occur. 

Yes, grand masters know a heck a lot of about chess that the average played does not dream of and that is why some average players discount the knowledge and experience of the top players.  Remember for decades the top checker players declared that game a draw with optimum play and many not so talented players declared that the top players could not "know" this as checker was too math complex.  But after checkers was solved via math it turned out that the top players had been correct all along and, in fact, had played thousands of "perfect" ["optimum"] games.

Generalising from a sample of one is neither scientific nor logical.

I have no idea why MAR seems to think it is very likely that White has a win from the original 32 piece starting  position???  There are numerous reasons the top players believe the theoretical result of a chess game played with no errors is a draw.

I have no idea why I seem to think that either. I didn't say it anywhere.

What I said was, "It seems then very likely that if there is a win for either side in the 32 man starting position without the 50 move rule in force there is a strong possibility it would disappear if the 50 move rule were in force". I think you may have overlooked the first occurrence of the word "if".

This thread is long on opinions and short on facts.

One fact that I find significant is that as the skill level of the two players increases (eg: from Beginner vs Beginner, -to- 1200 vs 1200, -to- 2000 vs 2000, -to- 2400 vs 2400, -to- 2700 vs 2700) the percentage of draws steadily increases; until at the very top echelons of the game (the most recent World Championship match, for example) it's possible for every single game in the chess event to end in a draw.

To me, this hints that with "perfect play" on both sides, a draw is the valid outcome.

Exactly. And for example now on the Sinquefield cup 5 round are played. And in a field of very strong players ( top GMs ) from the 30 games 4 ended in a win ( or lose ) and 26 ended in a draw. And the two first loses were in any case caused by very clear major Mistakes ( blunders ) that could adapted easy in the puzzel rush.

The first a rook check and overloaded queen a standard tactic. The second after b5+ a simple discouvert check wins a rook.  The last two games were less clear but for example Giri made more then one inaccurate move , he made more of them and played not very well. Clearly not perfect play. Thus I come to the same conclusion.

How you named this in English? I heart of the term Heuristic Evidence. Is this in this case an adequate term?

<<<It seems then very likely that if there is a win for either side in the 32 man starting position without the 50 move rule in force>>>

How on Earth can you possibly justify a conclusion that "it might be possible"?

I justify it on the grounds that it has not been proved impossible.

I see nothing to support it in any comments made so far in this thread.

I made it clear at the outset that I was not basing my argument on the comments so far made in this thread.

There's just a vague idea that "we don't know everything".

In what sense is that vague?

All logic, as well as experience, tells us that it's impossible.

No it doesn't.

I outlined the logical processes required earlier. They don't change in their nature according to who states them.

So far as I understood your earlier post it was only to the effect that you had a wonderful proof of the fact that best play leads to a draw (without specifying which version of chess) but the margin was too small to contain it. If you would give the details and they proved to be correct then everyone would indeed be interested.

And how, logically, could it possibly be for "either side" and not white only?

Having the move is not an advantage in all board layouts. In the following well known type of position White (or Black) wins only so long as he does not have the move.

No proof has so far been published that the starting position is not one such (though you claim to have one).

MAR

I totally disagree with your statement as you gave it with the word "if" included and wonder why you think that way?

I use "if" according to common usage. A sentence containing the word "if" does not give any indication of the truth of the antecedent except if the consequent is known to be false. Even then if I say, "if the moon is made of green cheese then I'm a dutchman", this in no way indicates that I believe the moon is made of green cheese. A sentence including "if" could in fact only ever imply a false value of the antecedent and only then if the consequent is false..

There are several reasons why the strongest players believe chess is a draw with optimum play or without either side making a mistake which would change the normal result of the game, blueeme gave one of the reasons.

There are indeed several reasons, but I would not place too much faith in them. There are many basic endgame positions that the strongest players of the day believed drawn only to be proved wrong either by players of a later era or EGTBs. These positions are inherently much simpler than the starting position.

Regarding checkers there were dozens of the top players who "knew" checkers was a draw. They played thousands of perfect games---SO if you only compare 1 game to another it makes the sample size look like 1 but we are talking about dozens of the very top players and they played many perfect games.

The generalisation I was objecting to was that if the opinion of experts is vindicated in one game (checkers) when the game is solved then the same would be true of another game (chess). In that case the samples are types of game and the argument proceeds from a sample size of one.

This thread is long on opinions and short on facts.

One fact that I find significant is that as the skill level of the two players increases (eg: from Beginner vs Beginner, -to- 1200 vs 1200, -to- 2000 vs 2000, -to- 2400 vs 2400, -to- 2700 vs 2700) the percentage of draws steadily increases; until at the very top echelons of the game (the most recent World Championship match, for example) it's possible for every single game in the chess event to end in a draw.

To me, this hints that with "perfect play" on both sides, a draw is the valid outcome.

This thread is long on opinions and short on facts.

One fact that I find significant is that as the skill level of the two players increases (eg: from Beginner vs Beginner, -to- 1200 vs 1200, -to- 2000 vs 2000, -to- 2400 vs 2400, -to- 2700 vs 2700) the percentage of draws steadily increases; until at the very top echelons of the game (the most recent World Championship match, for example) it's possible for every single game in the chess event to end in a draw.

To me, this hints that with "perfect play" on both sides, a draw is the valid outcome.

MAR That you do not place great faith in the various reasons the best players think chess is a draw says little.  Do you know the reasoning of those best players? [you don't] 

The fact that players have made mistakes over the years re difficult positions does not outweigh the chess knowledge and experience of the best players.

One important point is that in the hundreds of billions chess games played and not drawn--nobody can point to even one such game which had no error.

Chess and checkers are similar in many ways and that is why what happens in one may be an analogy to what happens in another.

The reason higher level games end in draws is because games are more likely to end prematurely so draw by agreement is more common 

Good point. At least, I think you're right.

MAR That you do not place great faith in the various reasons the best players think chess is a draw says little.  Do you know the reasoning of those best players? [you don't] 

Now how did you know that?

As it happens I've never even seen a poll of the best players confirming what you say.

The only way these players could argue the point would be via a survey of all currently popular openings and current assessments of winning chances for one or other side in the positions arising (most likely engine assessments), but as far as correspondence with the facts is concerned this procedure has some holes. There is an element of positive feedback in the openings that are popular, i.e. players will opt for opening lines that have been assessed as giving winning chances or minimising losing chances and these lines become more popular, so the assessment of some lines may be cursory. Indeed lines that have dropped out of use are occasionally resurrected. The reason is that the assessment has changed. This is not surprising, positions arising in the opening will mostly have too many pieces for a full and accurate assessment to be made either by human or computer. 

The fact that players have made mistakes over the years re difficult positions does not outweigh the chess knowledge and experience of the best players.

That the mistakes are still remembered suggests that they were made by people with the best chess knowledge and experience at the time. It is definitely a mistake to assume that we have now arrived at perfect knowledge.

One important point is that in the hundreds of billions chess games played and not drawn--nobody can point to even one such game which had no error.

I doubt if anything like hundreds of billions of games have ever been analysed for errors. In the games that have been analysed for errors it is very doubtful that the errors are correctly found and identified in all cases. There are numerous examples in chess literature of the analysis of a game by grandmaster(s) being overturned by subsequent analysis. 

Consider the play following. White starts off in a won position and finishes with a draw. Would you trust the average grandmaster without the aid of an EGTB to (a) correctly identify the initial position as a white win and (b) correctly identify the error(s), given some of the famous failures by top ranked grandmasters in KBNK and KNNKP with fewer pieces on the board. Similarly for the top engines. There are no EGTBs in positions with any more than seven men and the difficulty in making a complete analysis increases exponentially (or whatever) with the number of men. 

Chess and checkers are similar in many ways and that is why what happens in one may be an analogy to what happens in another.

This is true, but the small sample size doesn't give much confidence, especially given the extra complexity of chess.

MAR That you do not place great faith in the various reasons the best players think chess is a draw says little.  Do you know the reasoning of those best players? [you don't] 

Now how did you know that>>

They're bound to agree with the reasoning I've put forward here, because it's correct. Therefore, if they agree with it, they also will be correct and we can all have fun once more and drink Champagne.

About two days ago, I applied my once-mighty but now aging brain to the problem. It still works ok. Clearly, better than those of some here.

About two days ago, I applied my once-mighty but now aging brain to the problem. It still works ok. Clearly, better than those of some here.

Yes, you understand that despite Champagne and advanced years, you can't really compete. That must seem like a problem but just accept that you aren't here to compete but to learn. All will be well. Exponential series can be elusive. At first they seem cool but take your eye off them and they get out of hand. Then the fish really jump out of the basket.