That is exactly what I was talking about. Lots of words. Lots of opinion. But in this case not one piece of "evidence".
"You haven't shown a ton of evidence. You've just pointed to authority and draw rate."
"Yes, I've pointed to authority and draw rate. That is just some of the evidence. There is a ton more."
I am not going to read through all 150 plus comments to state an obvious conclusion. No chess engine has explored all the beyond astronomical series of possible games. So there is a possibility that one side has a series of combination that lead to a win and it could be either white or black, or given the best possible play on both sides all games lead to a draw, such as in the simpler Tic Tac Toe game. So in play an aggressive player might as well try for the win since it could be possible, but a wild move may result in a loss for them also. Evenly matched expert players may often find the game leads to a draw if they both play conservative. Since a full analysis of the game is impossible the only "evidence" is statistical, not a rigorous proof.
I am not going to read through all 150 plus comments to state an obvious conclusion. No chess engine has explored all the beyond astronomical series of possible games. So there is a possibility that one side has a series of combination that lead to a win and it could be either white or black, or given the best possible play on both sides all games lead to a draw, such as in the simpler Tic Tac Toe game. So in play an aggressive player might as well try for the win since it could be possible, but a wild move may result in a loss for them also. Evenly matched expert players may often find the game leads to a draw if they both play conservative. Since a full analysis of the game is impossible the only "evidence" is statistical, not a rigorous proof.
That's been said many times before. Not in the exact same words, but the same sentiment. Nobody knows if chess is a draw or not because humans aren't nearly good enough to know. And computers likely have hundreds of years of advancement before they come close to figuring it out. So yes, it is obvious.
I think the idea of "best play" is a myth.
Define best play
That's the thing. Sometimes, best play is objective, like if you have a mate or can win material without compromising your position. But sometimes it's subjective, especially in openings. It all depends what the player wants to accomplish, eg. king safety immediately, rapid development, central control, or a very quick and dangerous attack.
In modern chess, best play seems to mean making the move an engine suggests, but engines aren't perfect. Therefore, I think "best play" is a standard which humans implement on the game, sometimes without fully knowing what is actually "best play"
I think the idea of "best play" is a myth.
Define best play
That's the thing. Sometimes, best play is objective, like if you have a mate or can win material without compromising your position. But sometimes it's subjective, especially in openings. It all depends what the player wants to accomplish, eg. king safety immediately, rapid development, central control, or a very quick and dangerous attack.
In modern chess, best play seems to mean making the move an engine suggests, but engines aren't perfect. Therefore, I think "best play" is a standard which humans implement on the game, sometimes without fully knowing what is actually "best play"
No. Best play is objective and doesn't depend on humans or engines. You're thinking of the word practical.
No, it isn't objective because position evaluation always depends on preferences.
Define best play.
Jim we have already defined "best play" for thje purp;ose of this forum. We have defined it many times.
Crispy it is true that "best play" is subjective. Let us say you have a ton of material more than your opponent and you opponent has no threats at all. Then "best play" will lead to a win for you. And it would be subjective. Subjective "best play" is very often obvious.
PATRIOT you are simply rejecting evidence if the evidence by itself does not prove chess is a draw, As in the case of the dead man in the room anology if the investigators had said one of the pieces of evidence does not prove the brother killed the man and then decided that there is no evidence--the investigators would be in grave error and should be fired from their employment.
Arthur it is true that there has never been math proof by a 32 piece data base and very probably there will never be such proof, So you can say there might be a question about chess being a draw. But there is not 100% certainly of anything? We all might be part of a simulation--there is some chance of that.
However the ton of evidence put forth in this forum and also considering the new evidence which very few have looked at--I am 99.999% sure that chess is a draw. The question in the forum does not ask for 100% certainty as that would be a glaring error as nothing is 100% certain.
PATRIOT Most of the evidence given in this forum is not opinion. However opinions can carry a lot of weight . If a doctor tells you you have a certain disease and then you go to another doctor and he tells you the same thing and then you go to ten other doctors and they tell you the same thing then that is their opinion but it is also evidence that you do, in fact, have that disease.
Jim we have already defined "best play" for thje purp;ose of this forum. We have defined it many times.
Crispy it is true that "best play" is subjective.
Best isn't subjective you smooth brain. We aren't defining we are clarifying the definition because some people have no clue what it means.
PATRIOT Most of the evidence given in this forum is not opinion. However opinions can carry a lot of weight . If a doctor tells you you have a certain disease and then you go to another doctor and he tells you the same thing and then you go to ten other doctors and they tell you the same thing then that is their opinion but it is also evidence that you do, in fact, have that disease.
Most of the evidence IS opinion. If it were not opinion, if it were fact, then figuring out if chess is a draw would be a lot easier. And it's going to remain opinion for a VERY long time. You keep saying you have a "ton" of evidence. I accept your evidence, even though it's very minimal. You have said you believe chess is a draw because high rated people and computers draw a lot. And your second piece of evidence is that a lot of grandmaster think chess is a draw (which is opinion). It seems to me all your evidence is based on those two things. Which is certainly evidence, but not a ton.
I could do the same thing. I could say the higher the rating, the greater the rate white wins. Oh and lots of people think white can force a win. So there is my ton of evidence. That doesn't mean white can force a win, but it's a ton of evidence. See how that works?
Patriot We have the opinion of the very strong players. But that is only one piece of evidence, Of the ton of evidence I have presented about 90% is NOT just opinion.
The people who think White can force a win are weak players. Actually I do not even know of many weak players who think White can force a win.
And you seem to love to misquote me. You use a tactic called "strawman" which is essentially misquoting to make your case. I never once said in all these hundreds of forums that the fact that virtually all the grandmasters believe chess is a draw proves chess is a draw.
Also it is not true that I believe chess is a draw because high rated people and computers draw a lot--there is a hell of a lot more to it than that and AGAIN I never said that this proves chess is a draw.
It is just one piece of evidence.
And if you think those are the only two pieces of evidence I have given then you have not been reading or understanding these forums
@ponz111 The last 3 comments you made to IfPatriotGames have been just been "draw rate and authority prove chess is a draw and there is a ton of more evidence" despite her explicitly asking for that evidence. We're all waiting. I, personally, would love to see all that evidence.
This angle might breath more life into this thread. --
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/zermelos-theorem-and-opening-theory
Or we could continue to chase our tails. Your choice. 
My vote is cast with Ponz111. So let's simply raise our glasses (of beer or ale) to honor him, (please).
Patriot We have the opinion of the very strong players. But that is only one piece of evidence, Of the ton of evidence I have presented about 90% is NOT just opinion.
The people who think White can force a win are weak players. Actually I do not even know of many weak players who think White can force a win.
And you seem to love to misquote me. You use a tactic called "strawman" which is essentially misquoting to make your case. I never once said in all these hundreds of forums that the fact that virtually all the grandmasters believe chess is a draw proves chess is a draw.
Also it is not true that I believe chess is a draw because high rated people and computers draw a lot--there is a hell of a lot more to it than that and AGAIN I never said that this proves chess is a draw.
It is just one piece of evidence.
And if you think those are the only two pieces of evidence I have given then you have not been reading or understanding these forums
Well I am confused then. If I misquoted you, I'm sorry. I put the word "ton" in quotation marks because I quoted you. I believe that was the exact word you used. So I quoted you. I dont see where I misquoted you.
I said it appears you believe chess is a draw, and I think you also said you "know" chess is a draw based on a ton of evidence. But it just seems to me all your evidence is based on the two things mentioned. High rated computers and players draw a lot. And many grandmasters think chess is a draw. The conclusion that chess is a draw, based on those two things, is an opinion.
My opinion is that neither people nor computes are anywhere near close figuring out if chess is a draw. I think it's either a draw, or white wins. But even that could be wrong. In the end it doesn't really matter because chess is just a game. I would be more interested in knowing that if white can win, is it just a very limited number of ways, or is it many.
That is exactly what I was talking about. Lots of words. Lots of opinion. But in this case not one piece of "evidence".