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

Regardless if some chess players believe that there might be a forced win from the start of a chess game even if his opponent does not make an error--the fact that trillions of chess games have been played and not one has been shown to be a win without an error is some evidence that chess is a draw. That piece of evidence, by itself, does not prove chess is a draw--BUT IT IS EVIDENCE. And as in case I mentioned of the dead man found in a room--one piece of evidence would not be enough but a whole accumulation of evidence would be enough. 

Maybe. Unless of course is was played by two 1800 level players in a casual game that had no idea that it was a forced win game. 

@IfPatriotGames Don't engage with that argument. He's essentially saying "no one has proved its a win so it's a draw." If someone found a forced win (forget that it can't be verified) we wouldn't have this conversation. The fact is, chess being a draw is unfalsifiable. This doesn't mean it's a draw. Unicorns are also unfalsifiable. Chess being a win is unfalsifiable (no one has ever proved a draw was a forced draw), but for some reason he doesn't apply that as reasoning for chess is a win.

I'm going to look up the word unfalsifiable. But in the meantime I think I know what you mean. 

PATRIOT  You are doing what is known as "STRAWMAN" which is a logical fallacy where you deliberately distort my arguments in an extreme way and then attack the extreme distortion as if that is the claim I am making.

NO! I am NOT saying "no one has proved it is a win so it's a draw." Not once in all these forums did I ever say that or imply that.  What I said that in  the trillions of games played there has never been even one game where someone won the game which has been shown his opponent did not make a mistake.  But as I said this is not in itself proof that chess is a draw--it is only one piece of evidence.  

You are simply lying about one of my pieces of evidence. You use strawman often. When I say virtually every GM considers chess as a draw THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I THINK THAT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE PROVES CHESS IS A DRAW.  It is just one piece of evidence.

To give an analogy [again]  A man is found in a room deceased from a bullet in his head. Investigators find his name and address and he died in a home owned by his brother. The gun was 15 feet away from the body so it was probably not a suicide. Investigators found that the brother had taken out a million $ insurance policy on his brother a couple of months ago. So far these are pieces of evidence but there is not enough to prove the brother murdered or killed his brother. 

It was also found that the gun had been purchased by the deceased man's brother a couple of months ago. It was also found that the suspect had his finger prints on the gun and these were the only finger prints on the gun. It was also found that the suspect has gun shot residue on his clothes. 

When asked if he had an alibi --the suspect said he had been at a movie at the time the brother was killed. But the suspect did not know the name of the movie or anything about the movie. 

So now the investigators had several pieces of evidence. Not one piece of evidence was enough to accuse the suspect.  However all the evidence together resulted in the suspect being charged with murder.

Those are the EXACT SAME THINGS YOU IDIOT.

If someone won a game where the opponent didn't make a mistake, that's a forced win. You're saying, since no one found a forced win, that's evidence of a forced draw. But no one has found a forced draw either... so is that evidence of a forced win?

Then how did alpha zero wins . Stockfish never make mistakes. We are so certain that we have even make this as our chess engine

JimDiesel you are trying to make a point by leaving out part of my posting.  You deliberately left out the next sentence in my posting. This is disingenuous to say the least!!!!!!

ABC  You are making a big error to state "Stockfish never make mistakes"  I do not know of any strong chess player who would say that?

Here is another small piece of evidence that chess is a draw.  Correspondence Chess at the very highest levels may be the strongest chess we have? In correspondence chess a couple of the main openings have been analyzed to a draw. These are the Petroff  [1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6] and the Ruy Lopez  []1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. Bb5]  This little piece of evidence does not i itself prove chess is a draw--it is just another piece of evidence or an indication.

I agree that it is likely that if each side plays perfectly a forced draw is the most likely outcome but would have no basis to speculate the odds that this would be so! Statistical evidence does not really establish those odds because there may be unlikely lines of play not considered that do lead to a win! I read an article about if chess is a forced draw, perhaps in Scientific American, and the joke was that maybe pawn to h3 was the opening that leads to a forced win! Who knows!

Arthur. Nobody knows anything 100%  However have you looked at all the evidence presented in these more than 3000 forums?

The reason I am 99.9999% sure chess is a draw is because I am a strong chess player and there is a ton of evidence that chess is a draw.

That is my evaluation of all the evidence--some has not even been given here, Maybe some grandmaster might be only 99% sure chess is a draw? [because he would not be aware of all the evidence]

True. I`ve answered this before. End of siscussion.

If people keep winning and losing, does it matter that chess is a draw?

sadly, its a win

No. You think it's evidence that a draw is unfalsifiable. That's enough to be terribly wrong.

A best play necessarily exists in every position. Just because I can't tell you what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's like saying "There's no such thing as a biggest object because you can't tell me which object is the biggest."

Is chess np-complete?! It's not tic-tac-toe, that much I know. I aint checkers etc

Sort of. Chess in it's current state isn't NP-complete because it has a finite board size, but depending on how you scale it it is harder than NP-hard.