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

New evidence proves Black wins with best play on both sides!?

Is this a draw? What if the Black pawn on f7 is on g7 instead?

There are 180 pages in this thread. No one has offered the game that Ponz requested as refutation in his first several posts.

In the meantime, other questions have been posed.

My post addresses these.

PATRIOT  If both sides start with king, pawn, and bishop in their original position--it certainly is a draw..

And of course every starting position of 6 or 7 pieces is Not a draw. For example White could have a lone king and Black could have K and 4 queens [assuming no instant stalemate] and then Black would have an easy win.

@Ziryab

Yes, you're right, my apologies.

I think probably the symmetry of the starting position across the board is connected with the idea that the starting position is drawn, so I would count these as more relevant indicators of the situation for the full starting position  

If, for example, the fraction of winning symmetric partial starting positions began to look like

1-ℯ⁻ⁿ as a function of the number n of pieces this might convert some people to the idea that the initial position is actually won for one side or other. Unfortunately we currently only have relevant EGTBs for 2, 4 and 6 men which is a bit underwhelming. A fraction of 0 for the two man position is obviously a good start.    

Eight pieces. Known outcome. Gioachino Greco knew the outcome in the early seventeenth century, but there were errors in his analysis. Jozsef Szen worked out the key ideas in the 1830s. See http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2020/06/three-pawns-problem.html

i just googled 'shannon's number' and i got...360.479.5104 

anyway i utubed it and got...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Wpn3dFrEs

(there's a rumor that this songs abt IM Pfrens goldfish that died last week)

This is more what I was wondering about. If I understand this right if one side is to move first it's a win, if the other moves first it's a draw. But if it's the Szen position then either side moving first is a win.

I realize a starting position like 2 rooks and a king in their original positions is very easy, but I was wondering if positions similar to the Szen have a first move advantage that results in a forced win. It seem like there are probably some positions where it's not so obvious and some could be forced wins and some are forced draws.

PATRIOT  I already showed that Black wins from the starting position.  Have found one game i n trillions of games played where Black forces a win  from the starting position. [then I found more]

You were right all along--there were so many draws at the higher levels because players who had Black had believed in the Fake News that they had a disadvantage and could only play for a draw.  Once I realized Black wins with perfect play I was winning game after game with experts and masters and grand masters with Black.

Follow the link, and maybe another link from the article to see Szen's position. In the position that I posted this morning, both king's are in the starting position. In Szen's, the kings are both equidistant from their own pawns. In Szen's, the player on move wins with perfect play.

we know that the player who moves first CAN and does lose in certain conditions at its most basic level, right ? K+p vs K (opposition). this proves that at least a real sample does exist.

But that isn't with equal material (and obviously can work only if Black moves first). With KPKP and all pieces in their starting positions all positions are drawn. 

Can you think of any symmetrical position with the pieces (what pieces there are) in their starting position that is won by the second player? (If you post the FIDE starting position you'll need to prove it.) 

You already assume that ending position is drawn...

PROMETHEUS   That is a post from long ago.  

But yes, I assume the ending position mentioned i a draw when neither side makes an error.   

My assumption is made from a ton of evidence

PS I have even more evidence now than when I made that post.

I didn't realize the page, ops

That in itself could take some proving, but how is it relevant?

If either of them were the starting point your argument would appear to prove that they're drawn which is false. This means that your argument is invalid or missing some unstated assumption which distinguishes them from the standard starting position.

Do you concede that your argument is invalid? If not, what is it that makes the argument work for the standard starting position but not those in the posts quoted?

You could evaluate other arguments you have advanced under the same criterion.

oo