"NO" because I have tried that with stockfish 12, and guess what ,WHITE WON AGAINST BLACK, so white will win, I have tried this 2 times, even though same results.
Congratulations. Now you have to set them play 10 million more games to have a sufficient statistical sample! 
Vishnusai You did not give us information that was relevant. What was the opening? Why do you have only a sample of two? Do you really think stockfish 12 is the strongest chess engine??? What exactly is stockfish 12???
OK Everyone. After almost 4000 posts, why hasn't Alpha Zero been put onto this task?
It's already working on (possible) changing the rules --
https://www.zdnet.com/article/deepminds-ai-is-helping-to-re-write-the-rules-of-the-chess/?ftag=TRE-03-10aaa6b&bhid=20575108691210768145494160314087&mid=13048865&cid=717083220
So why not put it onto the issue of whether the game itself is a draw? Surely, Alpha Zero's (practical, empirical) "answer" would be the best available at this present juncture in history. Would it not?
And, on balance, that "result" would save us all lots of keystrokes in this discussion thread. QED. Ha!
Yes, yes, yes! A thousand times yes! Please stop continuing this discussion and move on to discussing something more interesting such as Republican hypocrisy as regards the Supreme Court.
This comment is pinheaded scientism. Pure and simple. Get a life, please. 
Well, that's pretty obvious. I don't get why you feel like it's important to repeat it. Then again, I don't have any scientific evidence that you aren't made of magical lettuce so evidently the only rational thing to do is to remain agnostic on the subject.
So is there definite proof that chess is a draw? No, not until we have 32-piece tablebases.
Is it rational to assume that chess is a draw? Yes, because there's little to no indication that it isn't. There's no debate here.
"NO" because I have tried that with stockfish 12, and guess what ,WHITE WON AGAINST BLACK, so white will win, I have tried this 2 times, even though same results.
Congratulations. Now you have to set them play 10 million more games to have a sufficient statistical sample!
Just keep the experiment running until the results support your hypothesis 
Even though you are obviously right, it's only a matter of time before Ponz has something to say about anyone questioning that there is not enough empirical evidence.
WRONG. The best claim for "empiricism" (however defined) is our best (to date) empirical test -- i.e. a "simulation" by the strongest chess player in the world (AlphaZero).
Your position excludes all discussion (and ANY empirical test). Which is a rather silly point of view, don't you think? Surely it's time to (for you) move beyond Logic 101 in either high school and college. Simple.
And that's not intended as an insult. It's a wake up call for the human conversation, writ large.
P.S. your (misdirecting) reference to "dark matter" sounds like an algorithm talking, unfortunately.
Alpha Zero's (practical, empirical) "answer" would be the best available at this present juncture in history. Would it not?
Optimissed while you know chess is a draw and while I know chess is a draw and while virtually all the top players know chess is a draw--there are many thousands of players who do not know this.
Why not create a forum on dark matter?
Optimissed while you know chess is a draw and while I know chess is a draw and while virtually all the top players know chess is a draw--there are many thousands of players who do not know this.
Why not create a forum on dark matter?
If you knew half as much as you thought you did, then this topic wouldn't have lasted 3000+ posts.
And that's the truth.
Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes!