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

it’s the other way around. sureness has a sliding scale but certainty is one end of that. i am sure about something is far below being certain.

sureness and conviction are similar. they come with doubt, but certainty doesn’t.

but don’t worry, i do not bolster my ego in any way from the victory of debate.

iluvzmelola  Sorry but I got my definition by looking it up on the internet. You are going against the internet dictionary definition.

In any event 99.9999% certain is rather close to 100% certain.. 

Those who have no doubt at all about any single thing often do not have the mental capacity to be open minded.

JimDiesel  again for maybe the 4th time you are ducking answering my question!  This tells me something.  

I very much like this format as all can see when you duck answering my question.

It is very obvious who does "strawman".

I am glad to allow people who view this debate make up their own minds about your statements and my statements.

the internet is the domain of the urban dictionary, ponz.

i am going by Shakespeare’s original definitions, the true english.

Chess has not being solved yet therfore we will never know. There are more possible chess games than there are atoms in our visible universe. It would take billions of years for the strongest engine ran on the strongest computer just to calculate ALL the possibilities. We haven't even scratched the surface when it comes to understanding chess.

Eden  I disagree. We understand chess well--at least the stronger players do. And while what you say about solving chess with the use of math is true--that is not the question of this forum?

There has been a ton of evidence that chess is a draw. I believe the evidence. 

The strongest players are saying chess is a draw. They also believe the evidence.

Chess does not have to be math solved for the strong players to know it is a draw.  In checkers--the strongest players knew it was a draw--long before this was math proven.

Both sides can play perfectly, but one side could time out, so it might not be a draw.

huhu--it would be a mistake for a side to time out--we are asking if chess a draw when neither side makes a mistake?

Everyone just trust ponz111. He has a ton of evidence. Every grandmaster does. Don't ask about the evidence though. Just trust him. Also, he won't defend the evidence in conversation because here he can miss points easily and then repeat the same talking points.

 In practice, when white wins, it is because black made a mistake and the error was exploited. However, it is possible that white also had an error and black failed to exploit it. So, who ever the last person to exploit the error wins the game. If neither side does not make a mistake (consistently choosing the best move)I assume that the game is a draw. In the beginning of the game, both sides are equal and if both sides play best move on the whole game, it should be also equal and draw. It is my humble opinion on the game of chess.

JimDiesel you are being incongruous here. I am not  asking anyone to trust me.  I am asking to look at the evidence which has already been presented here.

And to say I don't defend my evidence in conversation is simply a blatant lie!  I have defended my evidence dozens of times in these forums.

You are not a good person to debate with because when I ask a simple question--you go out of your way to avoid  answering the question.  Again I am asking you to answer my question I put to you  some forum posts back!

Another reason you are not a good person to debate with is you make up things such as I am asking people to trust me?

If you were making honest arguments, you'd be willing to make them over a call where I can point out the flaws without you falling off on a tangent like you're doing right now. And if you're really concerned with me dodging, debating over a call allows you to stop me and address the question. But you aren't concerned with honest debate. You're concerned with patting yourself on the back for 7 years straight.

I found this forum, because I am genuinely curious how people estimate the solution to perfect information game with a branching factor so large that brute force isn't possible. So interested, that I spent my weekend sifting through data sets (which is incredibly difficult because chess is elitist and isn't open about data) to write my own program and then change my own mind about the topic. No thanks to you flooding this forum with "look how many draws there are" and "all the grandmasters agree" and "I'm really good I beat a grandmaster" and "you're strawmanning me, that is only one piece of evidence, though rather than giving the rest I'll just complain." I'd say that is the perfect person to debate. Someone willing to give hours to the problem and change their mind.

You have no clue what it takes to answer this question. You've spent your whole life playing chess over email and not studying the mathematics it would take to understand this topic. You make me think less of the chess community.

There are a couple problems with your theory that you can't seem to resolve. First, a ton of evidence means nothing, unless you have proof. Evidence just means a guess. Proof means you are right. You don't have any proof. You just have evidence. 

Secondly, you keep comparing chess to checkers. But you haven't addressed the differences between the two. Checkers has been proven to be a draw (not evidence, actual proof). So is the first move advantage in checkers equal (or greater than) the first move advantage in chess?

Of course chess could be a draw. But there is a lot of evidence that it's a forced win for white too. The "ton of evidence" of something doesn't impress me much given past instances when a ton of evidence turned out be wrong. History is full of examples of things known to be true, until it was proven they weren't. 

If you are talking about the best play of two individuals with equal skill levels.. then yes that is a true statement.   However, if you are talking about say a master vs a C or B class.. then maybe not.

Clean  we are talking about best play for both sides regardless of skill levels. But it is quite true--the higher the skill levels--the most likely there will be best play. It does not have to be two individuals. It could be between two computers for example.

PATRIOT  Sorry but a ton of evidence means a lot.  In many crime cases--one piece of evidence is not enough--but a accumulation of enough evidence proves the case. This I have shown to you several times but you choose to ignore.

The top checker players knew checkers was a draw WAY before it was math proven. I don't know which is stronger--the first move advantage in checkers or the first move advantage in chess? I do know that either advantage is not enough to win when both sides play without a mistake.

Why don't you give the evidence that chess is a forced win for White??

I don't care that you are not impressed in the ton of evidence that chess is a draw?  Do you even know all the evidence that has been presented in these forum posts?

JimDiesel you have every right and opportunity to debate me here.  One reason I debate here is because I am not just debating one person.  I gave extensive answers to other people.

Also I like to show everybody how you like to duck questions.  You still have not answered my question of several posts ago!

Also I like to show everybody here how you tell lies about my positions.

In short I like to debate you here where everybody can see what you do!

chess is not two perfect players facing off, and that’s the reason it’s not a draw. it’s not a real question. for example, if two perfect athletes run a marathon, will they hit the tape together ? any sane person doesn’t care.

iluvz if you don't care about the question of this forum--why are you posting?