Anatoly1934 My rating on chess.com is not really my rating. My son played on the site and I did not know it until it was too late. I have a ICCF Correspondence rating over 2500. I have beat every GM I have ever played [real games--one to one] and have about a 65% win ratio vs Masters.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

llama There are many reasons the topic has lasted so long. Probably the main reason is the average player does not know most of the evidence that chess is a draw.
Sometimes I'm harsh on people in ways that are not called for.
I don't agree with everything you've said, but at the very least, I apologize for my rudeness.
Anatoly1934 My rating on chess.com is not really my rating. My son played on the site and I did not know it until it was too late. I have a ICCF Correspondence rating over 2500. I have beat every GM I have ever played [real games--one to one] and have about a 65% win ratio vs Masters.
Oh, okey. I understand you.

I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake.
youre wrong Fonzie. s/t's a brilliancy (and that why they have prizes for such moves and games) is found. even tho the other didnt make a mistake or inaccuracy. and theres a BIG diff btwn a subjective move and a mistake.
in the carauna vs. magnanimous WC, the computer found a mate in 18 for carauna. he couldnt find it. the game 6 ended up a draw. if caruana found it he would probably be ur WCC. did MC make a mistake ?...he!! NO ! FC missed a 4eva all-time brilliancy. one that woulda truly deserved a (!!!) .
and btw, warren buffay said that he woulda never expected to see a stock market do what it did this last spring. and hes like 189. so ur 62 yrs pale. and i bet u never won duncan suttles.
see analysis here...
https://www.chess.com/news/view/world-chess-championship-game-6-caruana-misses-nearly-impossible-win
s/o pleez tell me where MC made a mistake !

I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake.
youre wrong Fonzie. s/t's a brilliancy (and that why they have prizes for such moves and games) is found. even tho the other didnt make a mistake or inaccuracy. and theres a BIG diff btwn a subjective move and a mistake.
in the carauna vs. magnanimous WC, the computer found a mate in 18 for carauna. he couldnt find it. the game 6 ended up a draw. if caruana found it he would probably be ur WCC. did MC make a mistake ?...he!! NO ! FC missed foreverall-time brilliancy. one that woulda truly deserved a (!!!) .
and btw, warren buffay said that he woulda never expected to see a stock market do what it did this last spring. and hes like 189. so ur 62 yrs pale. and i bet u never won duncan suttles.
see analysis here...
https://www.chess.com/news/view/world-chess-championship-game-6-caruana-misses-nearly-impossible-win
s/o pleez tell me where MC made a mistake !
This is actually a perfect example of Ponz's faulty premise. Kudos. Go ahead Ponz, explain the mistake that Carlsen does not understand himself.
Oh snap, human beings do not know what "best play" really is! Engines are actually better! Alert the media!
Oh wait, we've known this since Deep Blue.

Although ponz has convinced me that the evidence concludes chess is a draw I am not as sure as he is because of the complexity of the game. It may be currently true that correspondence chess, where the best players work with chess engines to find the best moves, is the highest level right now, however now that Stockfish also has a neural net it seems that computers will improve to the point they will far surpass current levels. It will be interesting to see if some games previously played to draws will be found at some point to actually have had winning lines. If so then maybe ponz will need to reevaluate his thinking.

Hi Arthur Correspondence chess at the highest levels is FAR more than just humans using computers.
Many or most people do not realize this.
Also I am sure that computers will improve but then there would b e no reason that you could not
have humans with those computers plus all the other things humans do with computers at the highest levels of correspondence chess.
The trend is now that as humans and computers get stronger and stronger--there are more and more draws The reason for this is that chess actually is a draw if both sides play without error.
But also there is a ton more of evidence that chess is a draw other than what is happening at the highest levels of correspondence chess and the highest levels of computer play.
So that even without the evidence of he current best computer play and the current best correspondence play--there was still much evidence. That is why I was convinced chess is a draw long before computes got so good and correspondence chess got so good. But now I am more like 99.9999% sure while before only 99% sure chess is a draw--now time has passed and there is even more evidence.
Looking at the initial position of chess it is clear on a practical basis that some opening moves are better than others. For example 1. g4 will lose at the hjghest levels of play. While opening 1. e4 and playing the Ruy Lopez [.e4 e5 2, Nf3 Nc6 3, Bb5] has been analyzed as a draw.
Yes it is possible that certain lines or games played to a draw will be found that one side or the other had a winning line. But that is only because when the game or games were played there was not enough chess knowledge to find those lines and in any event the mistake or mistakes made will also be found. Also if a game is played to a draw--it may not mean there were no winning lines
Anyway the evidence is piling up.

Although ponz has convinced me that the evidence concludes chess is a draw I am not as sure as he is because of the complexity of the game. It may be currently true that correspondence chess, where the best players work with chess engines to find the best moves, is the highest level right now, however now that Stockfish also has a neural net it seems that computers will improve to the point they will far surpass current levels. It will be interesting to see if some games previously played to draws will be found at some point to actually have had winning lines. If so then maybe ponz will need to reevaluate his thinking.
That's exactly the point of this topic. It's far too early to say if chess is a draw with best play for the reason you just said. Computers keep advancing. And with that best play keeps changing. I'll bet there are lots of examples of past games that best play produced a draw, but computers are now able to find a forced win. It seems very likely that will happen in the future also. The only way that wouldn't happen is if computers have reached their peak ability and will no longer improve.

Hi Arthur Correspondence chess at the highest levels is FAR more than just humans using computers.
Many or most people do not realize this.
Also I am sure that computers will improve but then there would b e no reason that you could not
have humans with those computers plus all the other things humans do with computers at the highest levels of correspondence chess.
The trend is now that as humans and computers get stronger and stronger--there are more and more draws The reason for this is that chess actually is a draw if both sides play without error.
But also there is a ton more of evidence that chess is a draw other than what is happening at the highest levels of correspondence chess and the highest levels of computer play.
So that even without the evidence of he current best computer play and the current best correspondence play--there was still much evidence. That is why I was convinced chess is a draw long before computes got so good and correspondence chess got so good. But now I am more like 99.9999% sure while before only 99% sure chess is a draw--now time has passed and there is even more evidence.
Looking at the initial position of chess it is clear on a practical basis that some opening moves are better than others. For example 1. g4 will lose at the hjghest levels of play. While opening 1. e4 and playing the Ruy Lopez [.e4 e5 2, Nf3 Nc6 3, Bb5] has been analyzed as a draw.
Yes it is possible that certain lines or games played to a draw will be found that one side or the other had a winning line. But that is only because when the game or games were played there was not enough chess knowledge to find those lines and in any event the mistake or mistakes made will also be found. Also if a game is played to a draw--it may not mean there were no winning lines
Anyway the evidence is piling up.
TBH, most of the improvement on correspondence chess comes from improving engines.

btickler and Ghost lady if you read the full article about that particular game--Carlsen admitted he made many mistakes in that game and Carlsen pointed out those ,mistakes,. Also Carlsen showed several places where he could have played a better specific move. So that game was NOT an example of perfect play..
Prometheus it is true that most of the improvement in correspondence play comes from, better computers but that statement is true for all levels of correspondence chess-but if you look at the very highest levels of correspondence chess there is a lot more to this subject than that and that is why some very top correspondence players are giving up on trying to win a game against other top players.

Prometheus I am age 79 now and limit my games to 4-6 vote chess games played against the strongest vote chess teams. I am no longer playing against individuals But in chess.com, I have played many games against very strong players and have done very well. So if you wish to play against me please just join one of the strongest vote chess teams!?

Ponz - If at some future time computers go back to games considered draws and find that 10% of those really had a winning line of play, would you then reevaluate the odds that chess is a draw? Also, I realise that computers are great at brute force calculations of millions of positions but are still weak in understanding which positions may tactically be better. That is why "correspondence chess at the highest levels is FAR more than just humans using computers" since the human brain is far better at intuitive evaluations. However, I expect computers will eventually surpass humans in this regard also, perhaps in less than 20 years from now. If so, then humans would only hinder the best operations of future computers and would no longer be part of chess at the highest levels.
Also, have correspondence players considered playing a chess variant that would not lead to so many draws? I have seen criticism that the queen is just disportionately too strong, the passant capture unnecessary, castling too defensive and a stalemate (where the opponent can't move) should count as a win.

Prometheus I was generous to give you a way to play against me. I could have just said your request was unreasonable because of the difference in strength. There is nothing wrong with vote chess if you are on a strong team--you could learn something?
You need an open mind to improve your chess and to learn a lot more about chess?

Arthur the problem, with your question is "games considered draws" That is very very vague. two class D players could consider a game they played a draw?
and another thing you are not taking in to consideration is that correspondence chess at the highest level is Way more than just a human playing with an engine. You mentioned one reason the combination is better but that is just one of several reasons. Humans [at the highest levels] will never hinder computers==humans are too smart to do that.
What will happen is the 200 year trend towards better play will continue and then there will be even more evidence that chess is a draw. [not that we need more evidence as the present evidence is overwhelming]
Some correspondence players play other chess variants. Not too long ago I played a 4 game match against a 2100+ rated player using a chess variant. But that really does not answer the question "is chess a draw with best play"

Prometheus I was generous to give you a way to play against me. I could have just said your request was unreasonable because of the difference in strength. There is nothing wrong with vote chess if you are on a strong team--you could learn something?
You need an open mind to improve your chess and to learn a lot more about chess?
TBH your games look sketchy here and I can only wonder why you have a wiki page (winning the 7th US Correspondence Championship is not a good reason).

btickler and Ghost lady if you read the full article about that particular game--Carlsen admitted he made many mistakes in that game and Carlsen pointed out those ,mistakes,. Also Carlsen showed several places where he could have played a better specific move. So that game was NOT an example of perfect play..
Prometheus it is true that most of the improvement in correspondence play comes from, better computers but that statement is true for all levels of correspondence chess-but if you look at the very highest levels of correspondence chess there is a lot more to this subject than that and that is why some very top correspondence players are giving up on trying to win a game against other top players.
I see a link from Ghost...but no link from you supporting your assertion. Carlsen would have had to list his mistakes at the time *before any engine analysis*. Carlsen going back and discovering his mistakes with engine analysis would just strengthen the point being made here... that even the strongest GMs do not always understand what "Best Play" is without engine analysis/assistance.
I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake.
I would suggest that out of billions of chess games that one cannot find even one game which was won or lost without one of the players making a mistake. If anyone thinks they can find such a game please post it here.
So one needs to play Chess for 62 years to achieve 1800 rating points. (