Fixed your post about "best play" is one reason I try to avoid using the term--it is a quite subjective term.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

I dont think it would work like that. If there is a forced win for one side, by the time you get to the 15th move or so all someone would have to do is make a different move to throw the other person off. It seems like it would be too much for a human to remember all the possible deviations that could spring up.

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?

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.

Don't worry. His son will probably do it at weekend.

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?

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.

Oh, I see. Well in math you can prove something without a particular example of the result, it is actually not that rare especially when you deal with very complicated objects/transformations, for example, you can turn a sphere inside out provided you don't tear and bend sharply the material of the sphere and that the material is completely flexible and can go through itself. After the discovery, it took seven years before anybody could tell you how to actually do this and mind you, the transformation is complicated.

If you are interested, watch this:

Don't worry. His son will probably do it at weekend.>>>

Tbh, I doubt it very much. I was being optimisstic when I said there was a 50% chance. But he had mentioned that he wanted to design a chess engine without any reference to any methods already in use, to improve his programming skills. However, that was a year ago and priorities may have altered, although I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do it if there was no money potentially involved. However, I believe that such a proof would involve several weeks of concerted effort and I'm aware of the difficulties the PhD dissertation had on his social life when he had to depict magnetism in terms of the spins of fermions. He reckoned at the time that his labours revealed a hitherto unknown state (a "state" being liquid, solid, gaseous etc) but I think someone else may have grabbed the glory for that with a subsequent bit of research so I think he probably would not want to waste time on the project we have in mind unless it definitely furthered his own aims as they are now.

So don't hold your communal breath.

when you deal with very complicated objects/transformations, for example, you can turn a sphere inside out provided you don't tear and bend sharply the material of the sphere and that the material is completely flexible and can go through itself. After the discovery, it took seven years before anybody could tell you how to actually do this and mind you, the transformation is complicated.>>>

That sounds completely fascinating. I'm now going to be trying to work out the transformations in my mind, probably in times of solitude like when I'm sitting on the toilet. Trouble is, I'm never there for very long.

Yes well I think this is completed in three stages. Firstly, take the spherical shell in one hand and gradually poke the surface of the shell towards and past the centre of the shell and continue until it emerges through the far side of the shell, when it will be inside out. Then, take hold of the emerged, inside-out shell, probably between the thumb and forefinger, and gradually unroll the shell away from the emerged portion. That's stage two. The final stage, though, seems to involve a kind of singularity where the vary last portion of the unrolled shell, comprising an infinitesimally small surface area, inverts, which seems to involve an infinitely sharp bend! Maybe the last stage is just magic? Pop!

false, best play is finding weak moves so as to pounce later