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

You do not know if they change the game state, Fischer said the KGA was forced win for black and someone on a computer chess forum said the italian was busted in his and others books used for correspondance chess. KID is also under question by engine evals and Kasparov stopped using it after losing against Krammik with it.

What was sound may later on prove to be unsound.

That's the whole point of questioning whether or not chess is a draw. Nobody can post such a game because it's never happened. At least not yet that we know of. Nobody can post such a game because no game of chess has ever existed where one side didn't make a mistake. So of course there will be wins and losses because of mistakes. All games that end in a draw are because of mistakes too.

So it' very reasonable to predict that chess is a draw. It's also very reasonable to predict that it's a forced win for one side. Right now we have no way of knowing which is true, so both are perfectly reasonable predictions.

Right now the question cant be answered because "best play" isn't very good. The only thing we know for a fact at the moment is that "best play" doesn't always create draws. 

Indeed. I still say false. There is no empirical evidence either way that supports the OP's assertion despite his reputation and experiences. His predictions are subjective. His supporters are as objective, abstract as we "naysayers ". A "silly billy". OF COURSE he is right. No one can produce said perfect or optimum game out of "billions" of games he originally challenged us to do. OH BUT WAIT! Only in HIS context of what a "perfect" game is, or "best play" by BOTH sides. Ok cool. "Imperialists" like me believe white wins. But hell no, those who believe otherwise, go with the flow, supposed non-subjective "observers " condescend us as empirical theorists! Hypocrisy much? Heh. Because of online anonymity methinks, respectfulness over righteousness should be our starting point in any discussion of an unproven, opinionated biased forum. More details of my opinions to come, but I just thought to clear the air abit.

DRAWS in WC matches. Indeed, there have been alot of them as "predicted" (more or less) but in what context? With "best play"? You who are in ponz's general consensus (abstract opinion) decide empirically if yeah, it is in-line with HIS (and yours I guess right?) context. That these draws produced was "empirical " evidence of "True or False: Chess is a Draw with Best Play". IF not, then I'M RIGHT THEN, if anything by virtue of me just saying HIS prediction hasn't come true YET? No. I will not deem it righteous in this particular context (his context) even though I possibly gained some credibility ~namely because I didn't believe in this context (for evidence/sufficient "proof") in the first place. I simply wanted to show the fallacy. Bold Italics, definitive conclusions, human observations to prove a point either way is...well, "silly billy" for all of us.

Indeed. Those of us who grew up in the era without engines, AlphaZero, opening explorer, social media in general; who truly benefited from it's merits even when it wasn't a thing, a trend and toiled endlessly for knowledge, played many many games on end almost obsessively, simply because it was sport, a hobby or sometimes, life could never imagine it was a game that could be mastered. It would never score us chicks back then, or help us with graduate studies but it meant more to us. Something we all in the chess fraternity know or going to realize...that is, we are special. We play a "game" that is unique. Never been solved. Talked about for Centuries. It never went out of style, in fact its tent grows and grows. *end of soliloquy *

MEANWHILE, BACK IN 2019: REAL-TIME. Indeed. Reading back a post to myself, I'm thinking, why is it that this person (disclaimer: not referring to the OP) has the belief that he is the only one capable of focused thought, understanding of said topic, ability to express their opinion just because another person's perspectives are different and contradictory in their own eyes. Why call it rubbish (and therefore inept)? Oops, Let that one out of the bag.😮

Yeah I agree with the OP

True, i got boring this kind of world champhion games.

LOl

I think both of you mean exponential growth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth. Optimissed seems to suggest that the exponential series diverges which is wrong. The exponential series always converges to exp(x). It converges, because g(k+1)/g(k)<a<1 for k large enough. It is in fact x/(k+1) which converges to zero. And btw @Optimissed your 'mathematical proofs' are hilarious.

What I said is very simple, it's not my problem if you can't grasp it.

If you have a proof of the game state of the initial position, then doesn't that mean that you can determine if a game is perfect or not? It is basically the same thing.

the problem is theres 4-sides.

I have got better things to do then go through a 'proof' which has flaws in almost every sentence. In short it is based on too many assumptions. If you take away those assumptions the whole proof falls apart. And really you shouldn't pretend to know anything about mathematics. You can google the definition of exponential series yourself.

One more thing. The proof you gave is also based on the concept 'advantage'. 'Advantage' is very subjective and used by beings who cannot play perfect chess. Objectively a position is either a win for one side or a draw. So a mathematical proof would not contain the term 'advantage'.

A better question would be: what do you think an exponential series is? What do you not understand? Clearly you mean exponential growth.

Well there's White and Black that I know of. What are the other two?

From Merriam-Webster:

What mindless BS -- repeatedly over-posting that mathematical gibberish above.

Suggest you stick to English (not math pseudo-proofs), following 2600+ posts into this nutty thread. 

I actually originally posted "7 moves", but I meant "ply" and switched it to "4 moves", meaning really 4 moves by White.

In terms of OP's question, which is not about practical play, it always takes just one move to turn a game from a draw to a loss.

I'm not convinced by your assertion that most four ply sequences would not change the theoretical result. You don't give any reasons nor mention the 75 move rule.  Are you asserting this irrespective of whether the 75 move rule is in force? There is one four ply sequence resulting in mate, but whether this changes the theoretical result of the game in either case I couldn't say.

well theres neutral left and then the clock. i think.

(only cuz its the clock and a brain box that keeps it frumma draw. are we not taking in these abstracts ?)