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

what is the person talking about

I was wondering the same thing. It appears to be a comment on one of my posts.

This also works with the same number of pieces.

PATRIOT   HERE IS YOUR STATEMENT "You don't know, if you did, you would prove it."

I Have proven it--it is proven by the evidence I have provided. It is just that your chess knowledge is not strong enough to accept or understand parts of the evidence.

It is not necessary to have math proof of something to know it. You don't have math proof that you exist but you know you exist! There are many things that you know to be true that you don't have math proof.

You Do know you exist don't you????

By the way--the word "faith" has more than one meaning.  Which meaning do you assign to that word?

PATRIOT When I was 8 years old I knew that rook and king beats a lone king except in cases where there is an immediate stalemate.  I did not have math proof of this but I still knew it to be true. 

I 

There is Theory and there is Practice.

I've always found errors or a subtle train of errors in losses in the games I've lost and won.

The analysis WITH my opponent has always been part of the joy of the game for me after.

In the end it was more about understanding each other rather than the game itself.

This argument has been going on probably since the game was invented. I believe that white has the advantage since black has to react to the first opening ploy, but it's a psychological advantage. This can be turned easily by black.

But.... One of my favorite quotes anyway.

Whether or not it applies to this discussion is moot.

I don't know of any human who makes no mistakes in  life?

There're a lot of circular arguments here...

Ziryab...pleez prove it. cuz i quickly walked thru it and found that black can draw w/the kn pawn.

i would only surmise that chess is a theoretical draw. but chess is a practice. so if i hadta guess ?...its not a practical draw. and as much as we would hope ?...today's most powerful computers are still firmly in the practical camp.

so to prove chess is a theoretical draw ?...ur gonna a need a bigger brain. silicon or organic...or a head & a half.

in a Wild West shootout, no matter who got shot it was always declared a draw. so in chess no matter if it’s a forced win with best play for white or black, at the end of the day it can be called a draw.

You've proven chess is a draw?? OK, I missed that. I have a feeling the rest of the world missed it too. While that's not on par with curing cancer or anything like that, proving chess is a draw would certainly be worldwide news worthy of recognition. I dont always follow the news, do you happen to recall when and where it was reported?

if i can say s/t ? ponzies using intuition backed up w/ empirics (right P ?). and thats all good & fine. much respect. but stuff is running quite a bit deeper here in that counter-intuition is a real thingy.

if u cant name just (1) physical entity that has been proven to go on forever than chessed is no diff. meaning that theres near certainly a # that represents ALL the possible known outcomes in our little subterranean ajedrez universe. an ultra-richly complicated game ?...yes. an outright infinite game ? uhh, no. sorry.

the # exists. be it 10^86 or 10^186. and brute-force computing power will probably get us there one day.

and btw, Prost ! (lol !) & Mhalla solved Baby Chess a few yrs ago.

so progress is being made. and Claude Shannon's (bless is soul) work will sadly be rendered obsolete but extraordinarily far west  . yee !

PATRIOT You are dodging my question.  So I will ask the question again.

You do know you exist don't you????

You also have not answered my question regarding which definition of the word "faith" you are using?

As for proving chess is a draw--I have gathered a lot of evidence chess is a draw.  But very few people try and prove chess is a draw.  The vast majority of people who know chess is a draw do not try to prove it.  One reason they do not try to prove chess is a draw is that to prove chess is a draw they would be dealing with a whole lot of people who don't play chess or who have such a limited understanding of chess they would either discount the evidence or would not understand fully  the evidence.

Just as in checkers...the top players knew checkers was a draw--but they did not try and prove it. 

Regarding chess, there is a whole lot of new evidence that chess is a draw.

But still, I wish you would answer my questions?? 

Baby Chess looks interesting.

Pretty simple. My students all learn how to do this.

True enough. But, I’m not s tablebase and most of my moves were made in half a second. As Komodo also moves instantly, the whole exercise took a little more than thirty seconds. I did notice some inefficiencies in my play while making the moves.

It’s nice to see that Nalimov is elegant as well as efficient.