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

Jim intuitevily explaining a concept to an 8 year old and defining a concept in a mathematically rigorous manner are two very different things.

Here is everything in one comment. I am new to chess.com, I don't know how to delete comments so please help me out. Anyway,

The question of this forum is whether 1) for every series of moves that white can play, black has corresponding series of moves that leads to a draw and 2) for every series of moves that black can play, white has corresponding series of moves that leads to a draw. Drawing position is a position in which both of these statements are true. The position is winning for white if and only if the 1st statement is false and the 2nd is true. The position is winning for black if and only if the 1st statement is true and the 2nd is false. Now we can define the "best move". Best move in the position is any move that keeps drawn position drawn or a winning position winning. Best play is nothing but series of best moves. I rest my case. This is a mathematically rigorous answer to your question.

K, ready? Best play is play that gets the best possible result.

Thanks for the paragraphs.

Jim The result depends on your opponents play as well. In a drawing position you can make tricky a move that loses the game for you, but if your opponent doesn't respond appropriately you will win. Does that mean that your play was "best play"? Of course not. Now you can say that you are assuming best play from your opponent (best play for white gives white the best result assuming best play from black). But then that is a circular definition. You are defining the term best play by using the term best play.

Jim The result depends on your opponent's play as well. In a drawing position you can make a tricky move that loses the game for you, but if your opponent doesn't respond appropriately you will win. Does that mean that your play was "best play"? Of course not. Now, you can say that you are assuming best play from your opponent (best play for white gives white the best result assuming best play from black). But then that is a circular definition. You are defining the term "best play" by using the term "best play".

If you don't add the "best play from your opponent part" then scholar's mate would be considered the best play for white because it gives white the fastest path to victory. Such definition of best play would be very different from how chess players intuitevily use the term. In order to make your definition working you have to add the caviat "assuming best play from your opponent". In other words, your definition for best play would go like this:" assuming your opponent plays the best moves (assuming best play from your opponent), best play gives you the best result" . But that's circular definition.

Over and over again for almost 7 years.

No. You don't need to even consider the opponent. If you make a move that beats your opponent but isn't the best move, that isn't best play... obviously... because there was a better move... and nothing is better than best.

In fact, the Wikipedia article for "Solved Game" defines perfect play almost exactly as I did. "perfect play is the behavior or strategy of a player that leads to the best possible outcome for that player regardless of the response by the opponent." [1] They even specified the opponents response is irrelevant.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Perfect_play

And after 7 years still be wary about what "best play" is.

If a move doesn't change the result of the game it doesn't matter. If you are completely winning then even the fastest route to mate is still best play. They only way it isn't best play is if you make a move which changes the objective result of the game from a win to a draw or a win to a loss.

Steven is correct. By the way we are not defining "perfect play" we define "best play" but they seem essentially the same.

Jim   Sorry if you do not like to be told why chess is a draw many times.? The problem is there is a ton of evidence that chess is a draw.  I could write a whole book on this.

Interesting... seems like if that were the case we would have 7 years of evidence here and not "trust me, all the GMs think so, you have to be high rated to understand" written 500 times.

No one is defining anything. It is already in the name. Are you also defining biggest chess board?

Think for a moment here, are you qualified enough to talk about the solution to chess if you are stumbling over what the word "best" means?

Jim the word "best" can have many meanings, We have selected a meaning that pertains to basic question of this forum. No, I am not defining biggest chess board. 

Yes, "best play" is in the name of this forum so it is important to define "best play"

I do not think I am such a bad chess player. I have all wins vs GMs I have played.

It should be very obvious that I have provided a ton of evidence that Chess is a draw. 

Give a second definition for best.

You have an issue with rhetorical questions.

Who cares? (This is rhetorical btw, I know that's a rough one for you)

Nope. Haven't seen anything.

@GMproposedsolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

You haven't given a "ton" of evidence though. You have given a ton of opinions. And you have given some evidence, but not a lot. Your contention seems to be that since many grandmasters think it's a draw, then it must be a draw. But that's not evidence, that's opinion. And you have said that the higher the rating, the more draws. That is true, but it doesn't mean chess is a draw. Higher ratings also produce a higher win rate for white. That's just evidence that white can force a win. Doesn't mean it's true, but it's evidence.

PATRIOT  IF YOU DO NOT THINK i HAVE PROVIDED A TON OF EVIDENCE--YOU ARE NOT READING ALL OF THIS FORUM. IN ADDITION TO THE TON OF EVIDENCE--i HAVE POINTED OUT VERY GOOD NEW EVIDENCE. opps sorry for caps

No you are wrong--it is not my contention that since many grandmasters think it is a draw, then it must be a draw. You are misquoting me.  First of all  it i virtually every GM.  2nd--it is only one piece of evidence. That one piece of evidence does not by itself prove chess is a draw.

Yes, I have said the higher the ratings there are more draws. This is just one more piece of evidence. And that in itself does not prove chess is a draw.

And if you think that the fact that higher ratings produce a higher win rate for White and you think this is evidence chess is a win--then there is something you do not understand about chess at a high level? 

If police find a man dead in a room with a bullet thru his brain. and they discover a gun that was used. and the gun belongs to Charlie --that piece of evidence does not prove Charlie killed the man in the room.  If it is later discovered that the man is the brother of Charlie and that Charlie had taken out a one million dollar insurance policy on his brother--that in itself does not prove Charlie killed his brother. And it is later discovered that the only finger prints on  the gun belong to Charlie--that in  itself does not prove Charlie killed his brother.  It is later discovered that someone saw Charlie enter that room 2 hours ago--that in  itself does not prove Charlie killed his brother  However after a while all of this evidence mounts up and the police are likely to detain Charlie,