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

What assumptions? I have better things to do than to reply to people who either cannot understand English, are far less bright than they think they are, or both, and who are bad-mannered into the bargain. If you were genuine you wouldn't be hostile. You're hostile, which means insecurity. You don't know what you're talking about, so be quiet and in the future don't be so bloody rude.

I think I've stated about 8 times now that I don't know any maths but I'm a good logician, and that we do have a professional mathematician in the family but I wouldn't wish to trouble him with anything like this. The criticism you speak of isn't genuine. If it were genuine I would always take it seriously.

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 think I've stated about 8 times now that I don't know any maths but I'm a good logician, and that we do have a professional mathematician in the family but I wouldn't wish to trouble him with anything like this. The criticism you speak of isn't genuine. If it were genuine I would always take it seriously.

>>>I'll be up in Newcastle for a couple of days in a week's time and I'll be seeing my son then. I can explain the problem to him, explain that there are people who seem to doubt that chess is always drawn with best play and that I tried to explain to them that a mathematical proof should be possible and it would be based on the explanation I gave. Then it's up to him if he gets involved. If it grabs him and he thinks it's worth thinking about then he may derive the mathematical proof but it's equally likely that he'll be busy or uninterested. I think it may be a significant amount of work just thinking about the problem. However, I'm completely confident that the inductive proof I suggest is the correct one and it's based on an analysis of trends regarding advantage differentials as the game progresses. The point is that it would take an extraordinary event to reverse the trend of narrowing of advantage differentials into widening them and this could potentially start at any time, if I'm right in thinking that chess contains no innate properties that would provide such a singularity.

I think your problem is that I really did explain accurately why this is impossible and you can't accept that because you don't understand the explanation and you don't like to think of others understanding things you don't. This especially applies to Prometheus, who became very hostile for no reason except his subjective attitude to what I've mentioned. Others are just arguing for the Hell of it. Others are trolling a bit. And some are genuinely confused and think it's necessary to estabish every possible line in chess in order to determine this. And then Prometheus, who has told me about ten times that inductive proofs are impossible. Of course, he's wrong. What he should be saying is that inductive proofs are not deductive ones. Nevertheless, all scientific proofs of any consequence are based on induction, which can be defined as the drawing of a general principle from an observational trend, if it's strong enough, of course.

A lot of people are out of their depth with this kind of abstract analysis. I will know whether you are out of your depth or not, if and when you respond to this explanation I'm giving here. Over to you.

... As for maths, that is meaningless to a lot of people, including me unless I try very hard to remember my university maths, which I see no need to do. Using it is pretentious as well as silly, unless you are talking to other mathematicians. Pretentious + silly = not very bright.

I dont understand. If it can be proven, why hasn't anyone ever done it? Does a mathematical proof not count as proof? Just tell the son that if can prove it he'll be world famous.

It could be that the proof is far too complicated or outright large to create it. Also, who said that mathematical proofs don't count as proofs?

I pray it is a draw with best play.  Otherwise, what's the point in playing if we ever find out the optimal move order that will let one side win no matter what?  It would devolve solely to an exercise of remembering the win, giving the other side no chance at a win or draw unless the "winning" side messes up.  

Nobody said they dont count, I was just asking if it counts because Optimissed seems to be saying there is a mathematical proof (which I dont even know what that is) which can prove chess is a draw. Just wondering, if it's as easy as he makes it sound, why it hasn't been done yet.

Nobody said they dont count, I was just asking if it counts because Optimissed seems to be saying there is a mathematical proof (which I dont even know what that is) which can prove chess is a draw. Just wondering, if it's as easy as he makes it sound, why it hasn't been done yet.

The answer to the main  question is "Yes, chess is a draw with best play by both sides."

Also, "There is no way to force a win from the opening position."

In chess "having an advantage" usually means having the better practical chances. Sometimes the term is used [somewhat incorrectly] as having a winning advantage. 

Sorry but chess will not be 'solved" in a few decades. It is too complex.

However there is much evidence  that it is a draw and virtually all grand m,asters agree and I who have played against current grand masters only 4 games but won all 4 believe there is a ton of evidence that chess is a draw.

Just as in checkers there was a ton of evidence it was a draw and it is far less complex than chess and was solved as a draw.

Sure, a low rated player can claim otherwise but then that person is ignoring the evidence or does not understand the evidence.