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

hmm--no answer yet from JimDiesel...

this one from Jim's brother Dan....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YILvKkCckhw

...and if u believe that chess IS NOT a draw then ur forced to believe that chess can boil to a checkmate every game.

...inspiring  !

What is an "objective agent"??

Ponzie...I cannot believe u dont know what a objective agent is. i mean e/o knows that one !

(btw, wut is it again ?)

Why do you think that it is justified to put all data in the same graph without adjustments? The graph suggests that engines are stronger than correspondence players who use engines and that doesn't make any sense to me. You probably need to adjust the ratings for a good comparison. If we consider only the blue and green scatter plots, then maybe subtract 1000 rating from the blue engine data.

I don't think that anything new can be concluded from the data. It confirms what is known that the number of draws increases when the ratings of the players increases.

TOO MUCH TYPING I AM UNFOLLOWING

Haha, I can't believe this discussion is still going on btw. Looks like they still haven't figured out that nothing definitive can be said. We can only say that chess is most likely a draw based on data and empirical evidence. It is impossible to prove it mathematically.

The question for this forum us true or false chess is a draw with best play from both sides.

It does not ask if chess can be math proven as a draw?  It could be that humans will never be able to math prove chess? But very obviously the answer is "true"

I just said that you can't say anything definitive and then you act like there is a definitive answer.  You can't say that the answer is either true or false, because there is no proof. This may be part of the reason why this discussion is still going on.

its cuzzits way-WAY deeper than the seemingly simple question. theres alot involved here.

and re: the best player in the world (happens to be comprised that of silicon) relies solely on STEM. and the M part stands for arithmetic. so trust me. AZ is using voluminous gobsa math.

The question for this forum us true or false chess is a draw with best play from both sides. It does not ask if chess can be math proven as a draw?

***

ur making it sound as if this thread is bigger than u. ppl have been known to create monsters that ignore their master's joystick.

and s/t else. the question isnt if chess is a draw or not in the future. thats hypothetical.

the question is...is it currently ?

Numquam   Actually there is a ton of evidence that chess is a draw. You may not realize what the evidence is--but it is there. 

To me there is so much evidence that chess is a draw that I am 99.9999% certain that chess is a draw. [I am not 100% certain of anything]

Ghostess   The question does not ask if chess is a draw in the future?  It just asks if chess is a draw.?

It is rather obvious to most people that if chess is a draw now--it will also be a draw in the future.  

well ur the one who wrote the title so ur the one who should know (tho u dont seem to).

iows, look at the word IS in ur thread title. read it. then read it again very carefully. tho i can u/s if engrish is ur 2nd wanguage. 

ponzie: if ur gonna misinterpret wut i wrote in #3378 then im gonna misinterpret wut u wrote in #3380. only cuz its tuesday and im never in a very good mood on tuesdays cuz i dont like them.

Ghostess  the word "is" refers to the present. But to most it is rather obvious if chess is a draw in the present--it will also be a draw in  the future.

Checkers is a draw in  the present tense but also checkers will be a draw in  the future.

JimDiesel   I am still waiting for you to reply to my question??????

How about we skype/discord/zoom to talk about your opinions on chess being a draw and you can ask me anything?

JimDiesel

I already did ask you a question and you did not answer!!!

Besides it is better here where all can see.  Besides you seem to ignore all evidence that chess is a draw except you accidentally? put up a chart which gives evidence that chess is a draw!!   I like people to see what you post and my responses!

Besides my skype does not work!

Thanks JimDiesel22 for the graph, despite the criticisms and possible faults it does present some data to look at and if I read it correctly it seems to show a leveling off of the draw rate for engines rated over 3000. Of course the draw rate may increase drastically as engines continue to improve.

ponz111 recommended reading the post from Elubas (#3276) and he does make a good point about not having to analyze every possible variation to know chess is a draw. He believes that those who understand enough about chess will understand that at the highest levels it will be a draw, a conclusion based on their understanding of the properties of the game.

However I still have difficulties with Ponz111's assertion, see my post (#3300). I will just elaborate on one of the difficulties I have. The fact that the top computers still find ways to win games clearly shows that high level games are not necessarily a draw. Perhaps humans are just unable to process through enough variations to find the win or they just examine the more conservative lines of play. I would think as programs continue to advance they would most likely be able to whip any engine we currently have. Still, at some point it may come to be that at some level they will all start to draw almost all of the time too. Now my question is can we predict from this that chess is a draw? Bear in mind the beyond astronomical possible number of chess positions. All of the games ever played by humans and computers are just an infinitesimal amount of the total variations. Despite Elubas's assertion of this being irrelevant it is the exception that proves the rule and regardless of all the great understanding of the game by elite players I just don't see how they can state a winning "tree" of moves does not exist or even be able to estimate the possibility that there is none and the proof of their fallibility is that they can be beaten by computers.