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

I think the fallacy here is in thinking there is a single best move always. Because there's not just one possible way to win, that's not necessarily true right there. Especially in the first move. Of course, we're assuming a deep deeep deeeep engine, with unbounded computational power. There's a theoretical limit given by the fact that there are really theoretically infinite outcomes. I mean infinite, unless you bound the number of plays.

It is completely logical based on the definition of the word "best". Also, you've proven you don't understand what these programmers are doing at all since you think they're personal judgement comes into play.

I don't know what I expected from someone who thinks there isn't a consistent outcome from two perfect agents playing chess.

Glarange  You are correct there is never a best move always. In some selected positions there is a best move however.

JimDiesal when you deliberately leave out the major point of my statement you re being deceitful and disingenuous. And you are also engaging in  the logical fallacy of "strawman"

Shame on you! 

The fact that it isn't your only piece of "evidence" is irrelevant as I just said (are you strawmanning?). You think that because I can't show you a forced win that that is evidence of a forced draw. But the exact same could be said for a win. So you're being hypocritical.

Ya, "best" is a real superficial concept. That's why every tournament we spin a wheel and pick a winner. Magnus has gotten very lucky.

"Best" refers to the outcome of the game... for which we give points in a tournament... not superficial at all. The win condition of chess hasn't changed (maybe ever).

What do you want? A syllogism?

best: excelling all others

Objective of chess: maximize points (win, loss, draw = 0, .5, 1)

Best play in chess is the play that maximizes your outcome. Thus, there isn't anything subjective about what a best play. There is something subjective about making an educated guess about a best play because we can't analyze every line, but that's useless to this conversation, and if you bring it up you're stupid.

Evidence chess players are the dumbest people ever #1204

I just gave you a syllogism. What's wrong with it? Oh, you don't want to go through the logic? Ya, I can tell.

It seems to me like the side sport of every chess player is questioning each others intelligence. Haven't seen lots of constructive conversations in this forum which is concerning but also funny

Not me, I question ALL chess players intelligence. I wouldn't even call myself a chess player,

"If" chess was a draw with only "best" play from both sides, you cannot "win", but your opponent can "lose" by not making a single mistake.

Since time is invloved and noone knows which move is "best", this is unlikely to ever be proven.

From the starting position, the game is even. Before White moves, he must move. White cannot improve his/her position and therefore no matter which move is made, it is time for Black try and make their position not as equally worse by making the "best" move (as quickly as possible).

White could be losing with mistakes and win on time.

"Best" play isn't the end all/be all chess

But it makes sense that he's right. Best play might be so complicated that we will never know what it is, but is has to exist. Even if it's several moves that are equal and tied for best play, it would still exist. Forced mate in 27 from a certain position starting with a best move. I agree that different players have different tastes, but what if someones taste results in mate in 28? That's not best play.

I almost agree. Best play doesn't depend on how fast you mated. Otherwise the chess tournament rule set would reflect that. But defining best play as winning/drawing in as few/many moves as possible is a relevant discussion and on the order of as difficult to find.

Many moves are identical in  purpose. In this position White has billions of different ways to win.

If you look at all the positions which might be generated by a 32 piece perfect chess computer then 99.999% of all positions will be irrelevant as one could look at the position and determine if the position should be a win or loss or draw for both players.

.0001% of 10^120 is 10^114

I know.  many people do not believe this but thousands of perfect games have been played--i.e. where neither side made a mistake which would alter the theoretical result of the game. 

Jim, you finally made a statement which is true without using "strawman"!!!

I will also mention  that in reality if there was a perfect chess engine that produced a 32 piece database--you would not be able to look at all the positions.

So you admit that's a non-argument.