Many players already have played a perfect game where no mistakes were made. These are often short games where a draw is agreed to early.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 agreed drawn
Actually there have already been thousands of perfect games played.
If the game is short you do not need a super computer to tell if the game is a perfect game.
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.
3523 etc are irrelevant since they can't be forced into.
What I was saying is that if either of those diagrams replaced the diagram in FIDE Art. 2.3 your argument couldn't be correct, because both are demonstrably won for White with best play. Therefore your argument is either invalid or makes some (unstated) assumption which is true of the standard starting position but not of the positions in posts #3523 and #3532.
If the latter, what would that assumption be? Would it apply equally to all FRC positions?
The positions can't be forced from the starting point.
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
3523 etc are irrelevant since they can't be forced into.
What I was saying is that if either of those diagrams replaced the diagram in FIDE Art. 2.3 your argument couldn't be correct, because both are demonstrably won for White with best play. Therefore your argument is either invalid or makes some (unstated) assumption which is true of the standard starting position but not of the positions in posts #3523 and #3532.
If the latter, what would that assumption be? Would it apply equally to all FRC positions?
The positions can't be forced from the starting point.
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?>>>>>
The quoted positions can't be forced from the starting point of all the pieces and pawns on home squares and therefore the introduction of this argument is spurious and irrelevant. If you think the positions can be forced from the starting point then it's up to you to prove it, because of course, then, you would have succeeded in proving that chess is a forced win.
<<<You could evaluate other arguments you have advanced under the same criterion.>>>
I'm sorry, I didn't follow. What criterion is that?
3523 etc are irrelevant since they can't be forced into.
What I was saying is that if either of those diagrams replaced the diagram in FIDE Art. 2.3 your argument couldn't be correct, because both are demonstrably won for White with best play. Therefore your argument is either invalid or makes some (unstated) assumption which is true of the standard starting position but not of the positions in posts #3523 and #3532.
If the latter, what would that assumption be? Would it apply equally to all FRC positions?
The positions can't be forced from the starting point.
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?>>>>>
The quoted positions can't be forced from the starting point of all the pieces and pawns on home squares and therefore the introduction of this argument is spurious and irrelevant. If you think the positions can be forced from the starting point then it's up to you to prove it, because of course, then, you would have succeeded in proving that chess is a forced win.
<<<You could evaluate other arguments you have advanced under the same criterion.>>>
I'm sorry, I didn't follow. What criterion is that?
I haven't the slightest idea whether the positions can be forced from diagram in FIDE Art. 2.3 As I already said it's not relevant (in any colour).
The criterion (in any sized text of whatever colour) is that if your argument (comprehensible to others or not) purports to prove that chess (basic or competition rules) is a draw from the diagram in FIDE Art. 2.3 but doesn't include any property of that position that distinguishes it from demonstrably won positions for one side (under the corresponding set of rules) it is necessarily invalid or incomplete.
If you don't follow that, well, it's just a shame.
No no, I'm not saying I can prove it's a draw. I'm saying that I know chess is a draw with optimum moves by both sides and that is mathematically provable but it's a difficult proof and probably not worth the effort, since we know it's a draw.
The comments you make about positions that are already a forced win for one side or another are just an attempt at obfuscation, since it should be obvious that such positions, which are NOT the result of optimum play, and that's clear because they are already winning or losing, are completely irrelevant to this entire discussion. If you think I just made a circular argument, I would suggest that you're approaching it from the wrong point, which is from an assumption that chess is a forced win and it's for others to prove it's a draw.
I would respectfully suggest that you have that wrong and, since it is generally understood that chess is a draw, it is therefore up to you to prove that it's a win and not the other way round.
Incidentally, the Chess.com decided to alter the size. I didn't do that.
I understood
"In general, if one side can lose several moves in a complex and unclear but sharp position to produce a zugzwang, the other side can do that too and since that's the only way to win (hypothetically) it can't be done."
to be a purported proof that chess is a draw with best play. If it's not, I'm not at all sure what it is meant to be.
My argument was not designed to settle OP's question one way or other, merely to point out that your argument is definitely not a proof that it's drawn.
Neither is, "I'm saying that I know chess is a draw with optimum moves by both sides and that is mathematically provable ...". If you really did know that it was a draw, then certainly a proof would exist but it has been too difficult to date. The reality is that nobody knows.
If I were forced to bet on it I'd go for the draw but I'd feel my money was a lot safer under competition rules than basic rules.
I sympathise with your text size problems. I think the text editing interface on this site is pants.
I would respectfully suggest that you have that wrong and, since it is generally understood that chess is a draw, it is therefore up to you to prove that it's a win and not the other way round.
Incidentally, the Chess.com decided to alter the size. I didn't do that.
Not remotely true. It is not "understood" that chess is a draw. That's why this thread and so many other threads exists and why when you Google "is chess a draw?" you will find a ton of articles arguing back and forth. It's why there's a Wikipedia page about solving chess. GMs routinely disclaimer any "chess is a draw with best play" statements they make, knowing it is not proven and not "understood" as a fact by the chess world in general.
The statement you can make right now is "at the current highest levels of human and engine play, chess appears to be a draw with best play from both sides". That is too long winded for a GM sound bite, however.
GMs know that a statement they might make that chess is a draw cannot be math proven. Nevertheless they know chess is a draw and when they play their games and when they analyze chess they assume chess is a draw.
GMs know that a statement they might make that chess is a draw cannot be math proven. Nevertheless they know chess is a draw and when they play their games and when they analyze chess they assume chess is a draw.
They should probably play AlphaZero more often.
True. [/thread]
I meant GMs assume the starting position is a draw!?
NikkiKristofer Those who express an opinion that chess players are dumb if they look at the evidence and decide
chess is a draw--are really dumb themselves.
Do you really have the chess knowledge to back up your statement?
I am stating definitively that chess is a draw with perfect play,
Chess is a draw with best play, unless AlphaZero 2.0 proves White is winning because of first move advantage lol
IDontPlayVoteChess In the vast majority of chess positions there are several best moves. For this forum we are using the term "best moves" as any move that is not an error which would change the final result of the game.
We do not assume that the best move according to some computer is the actual best move.
About 4 years ago a GM posted two positions on chess.com where the best computers gave the wrong answer. I., as a 75 year old human solved both positions in just a few minutes. Computers ain't gawd.
Anything can happen in the vast majority of over-the-board play as one or both players often make mistakes.
However in the highest form of chess which is correspondence chess at the highest level--all games are drawn or just about all games are drawn.
And yes there are hundreds of games with best play which have happened at the highest/strongest levels of chess.
3523 etc are irrelevant since they can't be forced into.
What I was saying is that if either of those diagrams replaced the diagram in FIDE Art. 2.3 your argument couldn't be correct, because both are demonstrably won for White with best play. Therefore your argument is either invalid or makes some (unstated) assumption which is true of the standard starting position but not of the positions in posts #3523 and #3532.
If the latter, what would that assumption be? Would it apply equally to all FRC positions?
The positions can't be forced from the starting point.