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

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.