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

You are right, that is an answer. But there is another answer too, and that is "No, chess is a forced win for one side with best play from both sides." Both are answers, and both rely on opinion. The real answer is nobody knows for sure because "best play" by both sides has never been achieved before. Even computers are still improving. So "best play" when this topic was created is no longer best play anymore. Any opinion on what "best play" is today will be replaced by what best play is months and years from now.

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.

If or when chess is solved will probably have nothing to do with how experienced someone is playing chess. It will probably be solved by someone who knows computers, not chess. It's irrelevant what a grandmaster thinks about solving chess because computers are so very advanced beyond what grandmasters are capable of. The very best computer will beat a grandmaster just as easily as it will beat you or me. We are all beginners by comparison.  Chess might be a draw, and it might be a forced win for one side. It's far too early to tell because there is so much improvement to be made. I guess it's fun to speculate though. 

Chess will not be solved with computers, unless those developing quantum computing apply themselves to the problem, and storage media with the capabilities of DNA are utilized (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dna-data-storage-is-closer-than-you-think/).

This could easily be accomplished within the next few years.

With best play from both sides, chess is boredom.

I doubt chess will be solved in my lifespan but I'm no futurologist.

It is important what grand masters think.  Also there is a ton of other evidence that is important.

Some low rated players deride grand masters out of ignorance. Grand masters who have spent decades playing chess--know the game very well.  They just cannot compete with a computer which can examine millions of positions in one second.

Any very strong player knows that chess is not a win from the opening position. Some low skill players might think a win from the starting position might be possible but it is just because they do not understand chess well enough.

How many Ranks exist in this game and what is each one called? 

What a chess grandmaster thinks about chess being solved is as important as what a long distance runner thinks about how fast machines will ever go. It makes zero difference what they think. 

When you say "any strong player" I assume you are referring to complete beginners, when compared to computers. When this "strong player" says with certainty what the future of chess solving is it's the same as the long distance runner saying, with certainty, how fast machines of the future will be. The truth is neither have the slightest clue, regardless of their current ability in their respective fields. 

Sadly enough, you have missed the whole point of Ponzi's post. Or, you are delusional about the computers' chances to solve chess. In all likelihood, both of the above.

I must say, I'm surprised that this thread is still running. I can't say I understand my dear friend PatriotGames' post. It is clear that, when a computer finally "solves chess", the result will be identical to what we already understand. Even strong GMs understand it!!

Chess is bound to be a draw, mathematically, as I believe I explained earlier; and so did many others. I attempted to explain, verbally, why the mathematical expression of the positional evaluational difference between white and black must tend towards zero as the length of the game tends towards 30 moves or so, and that in the normal course of events it is impossible for this evening out of positional difference to be reversed. I explained that a good mathematician would be able to represent this mathematically, although there'd be no point since a mathematician would have to interpret the result and translate it back to a verbal language. Sometimes, verbal logic is superior to mathematical logic, but the concepts involved still have to be properly understood.

"accurate" means [in chess] "without mistakes"  There are millions of positions where you are to move and there may be a dozen "accurate" moves which lead to a forced win or draw.

@KibiDangoman The word you are looking for is blunder. 

Don't rely too heavily on engine analysis. There are still positions that Stockfish gets wrong, or does not get right fast enough.

For instance, I played Black against Stockfish from this position last week. It took some time before the initial evaluation of +2.00 gave way to +0.50, and several moves before it recognized the position as 0.00.

I know the true answer to this puzzle, but, I'm not going to tell.

The point of his post is that he, along with certain grandmasters, believe the outcome of whether or not chess is a draw with "best play" is already known. It is not already known. He does not know, I do not know, you do not know, and all grandmasters do not know. They guess. I can guess. You can guess. and he can guess. But we dont know. We do not have enough information to know. Anymore than a long distance runner can "know" how fast machines in the future will be. It's guesses and speculation. Nobody knows.

Haven’t there been certain endgames that were believed (by the authorities) to be drawn, but were discovered to be wins after sufficient computer investigation?

@Ziryab,

You just need 6 men syzgy tablebase to solve your issue.

http://oics.olympuschess.com/tracker/index.php

The torrent is free and legal to download as the owner publicy share those database.

You dont need to spend a few minutes to check the position. Stockfish can tell you the outcome 100% correctly within 1 second.

P.S. I wouldnt trust Stockfish evaluation without Tablebase. These days, a properly installed Stockfish can hit tablebases as early as move 12 or move 15 of opening phase ( Theoretically engines in these days can see door to door, from opening to ending in her Principal Variations or her predicted lines).

Yes they do know so there!

"These days, a properly installed Stockfish can hit tablebases as early as move 12 or move 15 of opening phase"

If there are seven or fewer pieces on the board.

Show me pgn of opening, I will analyse with my droidfish for 1 min and will show you how many times Stockfish hit tablebase ( seeing ending) while there are 28 to 30 chessmen on the board in the opening. 

My phone has only 5 men tablebase( 900 MB) ,  my desktop has 6 mentablebase (1.5 GB) , serious engine users have up to 7 men tablebase(17 TB).