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

Optimissed   I am quite surprised at your statement "But it has to be one of the two, true or false. I guess it would have to be false. Because if it's true it would have to be proven  and nobody can do that"

Wow! There are and have been many things that are true and have not been proven. The center of the earth is very hot--but it has not been proven. The game of checkers has always been a draw with best play but only in the last few years has this been proven. [of course the strongest players were saying checkers was a draw decades before it was actually proven.]It was true that the earth was not flat--centuries before this was proven.  The earth revolves around the sun has been true for a very long time and hundreds of years before it was proven.  Something being true does not depend on it being proven to be true.

Having said all of that, in my opinion the ton of evidence is in my opinion proof that chess is a draw.

I agree. But until someone proves it's true, we would have to say it's false. If the answer has to be one of the two. The real answer is probably we'll never know in our lifetime. Because both sides are so similar, I can see how it could be a draw. But there is a lot of evidence that white can force a win. There has to be some reason at higher levels white wins more. So until proven otherwise, I'll have to assume it's a forced win for white.

All good points. So you would agree that if it's true chess is a forced win for white, it doesn't have to be proven to be true. We can just accept that it's true. Right?

Something being true does not depend on it being proven to be true.

I don't think there's a way of the term "best play" been proven right, if someone loses they didn't had "best play" but still it's hard to say what does is it exactly, sometimes the strongest GMs, the strongest engine loses games, so no one can do "best play" all the time is what I would suggest.

JamesLeung   Of course it is difficult and a little rare for a whole game to be played with no error on either side which would change the course of the game. If someone loses it means for sure that he made a error/mistake. 

PATRIOT  I will agree with you that if chess is a forced win for White, it doesn't have to be proven to be true.  YOU can just accept it to be true if you wish.  For me I would look at the evidence and then make up my mind?

Something being true does not depend on it being proven to be true, Example:  I won more than 4000 chess games in a row without a draw or a loss. I know it to be true but I cannot prove it is true. 

Well said.

However, folks want mathematical proof, as in the evidence from 32 piece tablebases. But, at least, they do not need the solution for every one of the 10^43 theoretical positions, but only one. The standard starting position.

I am convinced that chess is clearly a win for White in at least 300 of the Chess 960 starting positions. But, alas, my experience is limited, so this hypothesis is grounded in far less than the hundreds of years experience of thousands of chess players who have convinced themselves through lifetimes of practical play and theoretical study that decisive games only occur following errors.

Amen!  Now let's all go pub crawling and drown our sorry in brew.     

Ziryab      We probably will never have a 32table base proving the outcome of chess?  Some may want this but it very probably will not happen.

We really, if we are open minded, do not have math proof  or other 100% proof that we are not part of a dream by a god or some other being.?  The question does not demand math proof--though math proof would be nice.

I, myself settle for what I think is a ton of evidence that chess is a drawn. The evidence gives me 99.999% confidence that chess is a draw.  I do not know of anyone else posting in this forum has looked at all the evidence  I have looked at and discovered over the years?

It is very unclear to me where Ziryab gets his idea that in Chess 960 what he says about starting positions in  that game?  But I am no expert on that chess variant and have no opinion. It is not so relevant to the chess I have played for decades. [but it is interesting]

It's a hunch. Some positions are terrible to play.

I've played maybe two dozen 960 games ever. Most of the positions that I have had have been uninteresting, and several do not seem fair to the second player.

Chess may be more like rock paper scissors, perhaps various styles having an unequal weight of probability of winning, yet be stronger against some few others - which themselves are quite powerful. 

Tactics:

A beats 17 styles

B beats 10 styles including A

C beats 5 styles, including A and B

D beats 20 styles

E beats only D

etc 

I didn't write that. It was someone else's statement to which I was replying. I generally use >> as quotation marks *because they're more visible*.

Not being American, I would very rarely use American figures of speech such as "I guess", unless I was literally guessing. I usually use "I think" or "I believe". I use "I know" very rarely.

Finally, since the passage is arguing against a draw and you should know that I think chess is a draw with best play, it could not have been me. I guess you should pay attention.

I realize that. I think maybe Ponz didnt realize it though. Maybe he is just quite surprised at you quoting me. Maybe he thought you quoting me meant you agreed with me, I dont know. 

Anyway, I was responding to him, not you. Of course I know you think chess is a draw, but I was commenting on his opinion that he thinks something is true even if you cant prove it.

I'm not sure what you meant by paying attention. You quoted me, Ponz thought you quoting me meant they were your words, when obviously they were mine. I'm not that surprised Ponz could not follow that, he gets a little confused sometimes. But I am surprised you couldn't see I was responding to him, and his mistaken belief that those were your words. 

Optimissed. thank you for editing your post. I see you took out the part where you responded to me. 

Sorry about that and I apologise. I hadn't noticed I was responding to you. I was just generally irritated by having to correct the post.

No worries. I understand nobody likes someone else misrepresenting what they said. 

Optimissed  One reason I was surprised at what I thought was your staterment was because I remembered  that your previous statements seemed logical and thought out. 

So now, I realize it was not your statement and I am sorry for my misunderstanding. 

Peace. 

so is the dead horse beaten enough here? maybe take a rest, wait a couple more years and then continue?

Or simply pause, (take a deep breath), and brace yourselves for another 3000 upcoming posts, and another seven years of discussion in this thread!  

Thanks. I should apologise to you also for the confusion I helped to cause. I appreciate your post too. You and PatriotGames are on opposite sides and I think she's intelligent and that she meant what she said in a rather different way from how it may have looked. I'm a bit bipolar in some of these discussions because extreme relativism keeps wanting to kick in and make me agree with people who are sceptical when we pretend to know it's a draw with best play. So I understand where they're coming from if not the exact route they took to get there.

Maybe.