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

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.

are u nutz in ur semolina ??...thinka wutchu just said. thats so dum. how do u know wut chess technology's gonna look like in 10 or 20 yrs ? organics (ppl) probably wont be proving chess is NOT a draw, but silicon-based derivatives might. think ponzie....THINK.

the past is history, the future is a mystery, and today is a gift...n'thats why its thee present. yee !

and Lola exists in the present! that’s why it’s so cool.

i don’t think chess is a draw. if the game goes on indefinitely one player will win by default when the other dies. the trick of course is to ensure it’s not one of those unwinnable endgames.

I'll stream it. Then everyone can hear your ideas articulated in a better format.

ArthurEZiegler   The fact that top computers still find ways to win games shows they play opposition which sometimes makes mistakes.

You are forgetting that top computers are Not the highest form of chess. Stronger is correspondence chess at the highest level.  In that stronger chess--There is almost all draws. Top correspondence players go for years without losing even one game. 

You may not know this but sometimes top computers are programmed to play certain inferior openings. For example I saw a couple of games where top computers were forced to play this very inferior line as Black 

Continued   Of course each of the two top computers won as White with the above variation --thus increasing the win rate.  You do not find this happening in the highest levels of correspondence chess. 

Your idea that perhaps humans just examine more conservative lines of play does not really fit with reality. Some humans play conservative and some don't. I always played to win  every game--even against the GMs I played. [and I am a human] [too bad for the GMs]

You also asked if we can predict from games being drawn at the high levels that chess is a draw? The answer is "no"--this is just one piece of evidence.  But when you look at All the evidence you have the very strongest players assuming chess is a draw. 

And of course the strongest over-the-board humans can be beaten by computers. But this is Not because they do not understand chess. It is simply because computers may be able to look at tens of millions of positions a second and humans cannot. It is like comparing the best marathon runners in  the world to a motorcycle. 

I doubt very much that you are aware of all the evidence that chess is a draw?  As when a player reaches master and GM and above he discerns more and more evidence that chess is a draw.

Looking at a whole lot of evidence is why I am 99.9999% certain that chess is a draw. [I am not 100% certain of anything]

TRUE

ponz11-  I'm not sure why a computer would be made to play such an opening unless they deliberately wanted to increase the wins of the other computer. I have no doubt that humans understand chess much better than any current machine and the computer's advantage is just the brute force of it's examining so many positions, but my thought is that it discovers winning lines too deep in the play for humans to .perceive. I have seen computer games where pawns or major pieces are sacrificed with abandon to gain a positional advantage, moves a human would most likely not consider that led to a won game. As I said before it would be interesting to have a chess engine analyse some of the drawn correspondence games to see if they find a winning combination in some point of the game. Also, is it your contention that the best correspondence player could beat or draw a computer? I assume you mean if they use computer aid and the human understanding combined with the calculating speed of a machine produces the highest level games. Not being a high rated player myself perhaps I lack the insights to understand why you say it's 99.9999% certain chess is a draw, I am not sure what type of "evidence" is discerned, perhaps just the difficulty of forcing a win. 

Arthur computers have to play what they are programmed to play sometimes  Sometimes programmers pick out inferior lines and thus the win/loss rate goes up.

The lines played by super strong computers --I understand pretty well and I have beaten GMs but am not yet a GM.

And the games where a computer sacs a whole piece for positional advantage--I understand very well [and I am a human]

And if a chess engine analyzed some of the drawn games I mentioned [played at the hjghest levels of correspondence chess] that computer would not find any places where one side missed a win.

Yes, correspondence chess at the highest level is humans with the aid of computers and not only that they have data bases and other forms of help.

As to evidence that chess is a draw there has been a ton of evidence given in these forums over the years--very likely you have not read all 3000 plus posts and are unaware of all the evidence?

The difficulty in forcing a win is just one of the pieces of evidence.  One can be up a piece and a pawn and still the position could be a dead draw. Way back in 1959 I played in my first USCF tournament [the USA Open in Omaha] and forced a draw where I had a lone king and my opponent had king and protected pawn and bishop. ][after 12 games I only had a class A USCF rating]

Arthur back about 4 years ago a GM gave two positions which the best chess engines at the time could

not find the best continuation?

He posted the 2 positions here on chess.com, With about 6 minutes of time for each position I solved both positions and posted the best moves here on chess.com.

How could a 75 year old human [with his best days behind him]  solve those two positions which the best computers could not solve?? Because being human I had one advantage--I could think outside the box!

Computers aint gawd..[so to speak]

If you're so confident in your opinion, why are you afraid to defend it in a forum where everything you say can be addressed timely?

you can’t be 99% certain.

certainty leaves no room for doubt.

I'll leave room for u tonite luvz...for certain lol !

So glad you've found a better thread to troll.

According to you, @ponz111, if we put Lc0 against Lc0 it'll end up in a draw?

everything you write alters my psychology forever, Goddess!

acceptablecheddar  What you are doing with your most recent post is a logical fallacy called "strawman"

I never said or implied that if Lc0  playued Lc0 that the result will end up in a draw.  You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a bogus statement!

iluvzmelola   Certainty means firm conviction. It does not necessarily mean absolutely 100% sure. Those who are absolutely 100% sure are deluding themselves.

JimDiesel  Again you are ducking my question posed to you recently.

In this forum everything I say can be addressed timely. AND what is better everyone can see your responses and my responses!

It is rather odd for you to say I am afraid to defend my opinion when I started this forum and have defended my opinion dozens of times!

No. This is a terrible way to debate. You constantly get off track, misunderstand statements, and flood the conversation. And I assume (based on the hundredth time you defined strawman), you think others do this, too. Others can see what you say if it's streamed. We can post the link here if you think they're interested.