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

But that's evidence, not proof. Wouldn't that be like saying the higher the rating, the more often white wins therefore that's evidence white has a forced win from the beginning? Or saying overall white wins more often than black so the advantage of going first is evidence white can force a win? It's evidence, not proof. Or as I would say, just a guess. 

Patriot   you are not understanding what I am saying.  For one thing I did not say "proof" I said "evidence"

your anology is also greatly flawed.  Just to give one example of the new evidence--they had a tournament of the very top correspondence players 9 or 11 players--I don't remember which--theY were the current world champion and some former world champions and EVERY GAME WAS A DRAW. 

THAT IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE--THERE IS EVEN MORE COMPELLING EVIDENCE.--THOSE WHO ARE STRONG ENOUGH IN CHESS AND LOGIC CAN RESEARCH IT THEMSELVES.

Yes, I understand that's evidence. Not proof. I also realize that games between players that are of the same ability are more likely to result in a draw. Two players rated 2700 are going to play near the same level, and probably going to have a lot of draws. But two players, likely computers, rated 3500 are also probably going to have a lot of draws. So saying top level chess results in a lot of draws doesn't mean much. What happens when the top level 2700 player plays against the top level 3500 player? I have a feeling you would not see so many draws. Just because white wins more than black doesn't mean it's a forced win for white, it's just evidence. 

Except computers draw less. Sometimes even lose.

Then just leave. You are incredibly stupid.

First, learn how to quote me. That's the opposite of what I said. I would have thought someone as smart as you would know how to quote someone.

Nope. It might be more than rare... it might never have happened.

Oh, I didn't realize you were such a strong player. Why then can I post boards much less complicated than the starting position, and you would get them wrong?

Jim, I am a much stronger player than you think. I have played only 4 current grand masters in slow games but won from all 4  A few years ago a grand master posted  couple of positions on chess.com that the best computers got wrong. I solved one position in about 7 minutes and the other in about 6 minutes.   I do understand the evidence I was posting about--the question is --do you understand that evidence?

Jim if you think a perfect game of chess might never have been played--then I really question your chess ability?

A perfect game - as in both sides playing perfectly. Very unlikely.

You are nothing compared to the best GMs. They are nothing compared to a computer. Computers are nothing compared to perfect play.

Your personal experience doesn't matter. You've experienced such a insignificant amount of games it is unfathomable.

I think that sums it up very well. Your order of ability is accurate. Our opinions on what perfect play or best play is means nothing. I would bet 100 years from now computers will play far better than todays best computers, so I dont think any of us will even live long enough to see anything close to best play. Unless it happens by sheer luck, I dont think it will ever happen by a human. 

If one achieves a certain amount of chess strength--he/she knows chess is a draw. As players or machines become more and more stronger--they tend more and more to draw against each other. 

Yes, my personal experience does matter.  But what matters more than that is the ton of evidence. And there is new evidence that is very important but it seems clear that a few here do not want to look at the evidence.  

And yes there have been many perfect games played already but many players are not strong enough to realize this.  Again I suggest that if you are strong enough player--LOOK AT THE RECENT EVIDENCE

ponz111 Then why do you draw more often then alpha zero, a machine that clearly evaluates positions better than you?

Jaas knows his logic. Others kind of have a grasp of it but keep repeating terms which invalidates their premise.

No one can even say 1. e4 is a perfect move so no matter all the APPARENT even situations after 16 moves of a book opening, there is no such thing as perfect as far we know for ANY of the moves (except in singular cases it is with great assurance that taking a queen in a simple arrangement is the absolute best or can be shown logically to be so from some number of moves out, along with the obvious case of a king being in check and there is only one possible move available). Going by what a chess program claims to be some numerical assessment of a board position and the highest number attributed for one of the moves DOES NOT mean it is the best move - this is per human programming and so we can only guess with some confidence of the best move and that's about it.

Though I felt earlier white may be able to force a win in playing one or few particular lines (and which millions of possibilities would have to be delineated for all possible moves of black to demonstrate a forced win), I am beginning to think it is not possible, but that is using the word "think". There may in fact be a way white could force a win. We may be a long ways away from elucidating this.

Humans have much better things to worry about. It is a curiosity still worth some effort but far more important things need to be dealt with than this.

Jim Diesel   Your question was a poor question as you seem to think I draw a lot. Actually I have won more than 50 games in a row. My lifetime record vs masters and grand masters is mostly wins.

Accout    if you improve your chess to at least the master level--you will realize that chess is a draw. Almost all strong players realize chess is a draw.  Also there is a ton of evidence that chess is a draw if neither side makes a mistake.

Bad premise and I was on my way to the big time before and I chose not to continue. That is irrelevant to my understanding of the issue. One does not have to be in a particular spot as far as mastering the game to see what's involved. What I see is denigration in your words. Try holding off on the absolutes and predicate more. Lots of evidence is not proof. You "will" and "if you improve" nonsense words detract from the focus of the discussion. If you choose to be smart, if you choose to be pleasant, if you choose to not be ignorant.......you would like this thrown at you?

Read my words above. It's not difficult. What you garnish evidently is 'he said chess is not a draw with perfect play' and then you run wild.

We do not know what perfect play is. It might be known in the future that the very best move is 1.g3 to start. Who can prove this is untrue? Bring up all the assumptions based on assumptions and it will not suffice. It appears with our understanding of what best play is that a draw is the outcome. <----read 20 times if needed. No need to throw out a lot of gibberish as if I contend the opposite.

Chess is likely a draw with good enough play by both sides. That said, it is unlikely to play good enough again and again. Even engines make mistakes both to fall at a disadvantage as when trying to convert an advantage.

So, regardless of what theory may suggest, there are ways to increase our accuracy while making it difficult for the rival to achieve the same during a game.

There is a guy in talk chess forum where he legitimately post a few draw games against Stockfish 32 cpu to 64 cpu in playchess engine room server. He may have like probably 1 draw in 100 games or 200 games, we dont know his stat, but he always play Stonewall and block everything. 

Playing symmetrical pawn structures makes draw easier. Rather than playing 1. e4 c5 ,  playing 1. e4 e5 (e.g Berlin). Even if you are have 32 men tablebase access that know about outcome of all 32 men TB positions (10^47 maximum positions), you cant literally win a single game, if a player keep playing drawish lines. (that make theoretically perfect chess) 

Once a game was lost for computer chess, programmers know that the loser did mistake(s) somewhere (as they believe by evidence that chess is already draw), they analyse Stockfish mistake by Stockfish by reverse analysis. 

For example, At move 1 the game seemed draw but at move 40 the game was lost. From move 1 to  move 40, Stockfish cant see straight loss . However, if you let SF analyse by reverse, telling stockfish that move 40 is lost (can you see it from move 35, move 30, etc ) and find out where the turning point of the loss. This way engines are playing better and better, reducing weakness and playing closer and closer to perfect chess (which end as draw by both sides)