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

There is science, and there is the "faultless" logic of people who put all their trust in machines. Human experience, especially that of informed and trained observers, has no merit.

That's the opposite of what you just said. You said "most of the unplayed variations"... unplayed... as in experience.

@Optimissed You said "the slight advantage white has is progressively diluted". What if white is playing wrong?

"My argument is essentially an argument from experience, of course. But it's a generalised experience." In what scenario is an argument from experience not generalized? Any response to this question based on experience is generalized. Your experience doesn't matter.

The nuance of satire clearly goes way over your head.

@Optimissed

Listen you bonobo, playing chess doesn't have anything to do with solving chess. Let me put this in terms you can understand.
You and all your friends who play "accurate" (LOL) chess have played this many games: 1,000,000,000,000

But there are this many games to be played: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

You can't extract a trend from that.

I personally think it's even more.

No, your analogy is awful. A closer analogy is this:

"I have seen 1 atom experience gravity, thus all matter experiences gravity."

Except the ratio of played games to possible games is lower than 1 to all atoms in the observable universe.

Are odds to be given?

Seems like chess engines could prove or contradict this (or maybe they already have); or not; interesting topic

But Hume was right in that Newton's gravitational theory is not correct in all (or perhaps, any) circumstances!  See, e.g., general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics.

Hmm

Correct.  AlphaZero contradicted it.

What's your reasoning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero#Chess_2

Reasonable minds can differ however.

So, you believe chess has a forced win for white and your proof is one AI beat another with a record of 155-839-6? Or maybe you meant proved it was a draw? Either way, far from proof.

Actually, neither conjecture.

I opine it proves that chess is NOT a guaranteed draw (or non-draw) with best play from both sides.

I am not sure what you mean by proof, or, more importantly, how such proof could ever be established under your framework, but that is OK.  We can certainly differ on an intellectual level.

@GWTR

You talk like you're really smart, but didn't understand a very simple question.

"True or False: Is chess a forced draw?"

You: False, it can't be determined.

Why is it that the higher rated a chess player is, the dumber they are?

I do not understand your hostility (or desire to lob insults).  I apologize if I acted offensive in some manner.

My premise is that chess is NOT a forced draw.  I am unsure how that equates to "can't be determined."  In fact, I included a link showing (IMHO) it was determined that there is no guarantee of a draw (i.e., no forced draw).

@GWTR So, you've said "chess is NOT a forced draw" and "chess is NOT a guaranteed draw (or non-draw)". Those are just contradictory statements.

The second statement implies there isn't enough evidence to guarantee a draw or win. And the first says there is a win.

Also, google what a premise is before you use it next time. What you meant was "your conclusion is chess is not a forced draw".

Incorrect.  Just because it is not a forced draw does not mean it is a forced win.  Nothing is guaranteed when the game begins.  I hope I have done a better job setting forth my thesis.

@GWTR If something is not a guaranteed draw and not a guaranteed non-draw, then there isn't a guaranteed outcome... indeterminable... again proving chess players are the dumbest people on the planet.