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

Prometheus what games do you think look sketchy? Remember 96% of my games here are unrated--have you actually seen those games? Have you seen some of my games where I beat GMs??  Do you not believe me when I state my son played games on my account and that is why it show a low rating! I  never mentioned I have a Wiki page but I won the 7th United States Correspondence Championship with 13 wins and 1 draw and no losses and you are trying to disparage me??  There is something wrong with you!

Levent  you are simply wrong--you made a mistake before the endgame.

btickler  Do you know Carlsen did not point out a mistake before he saw engine analysis? The article I read indicated he knew some of his mistakes right after the game ended. If your point is some GMs do not know best play--I agree with that.  

Nothing you've said is news, in any case, if it wasn't clear yet, I'm talking about your games here.

Seriously? A FM with less rating than I just gives up on move 4? With engine assistance?

Prometheus. NO you are in error again. 1random is a very good player. There was a reason he abandoned this game.. He knows and I know that the position at the end of this game is pretty much even.  So you don't know Why he resigned so early but yet you wish to disparage him??? For absolutely sure he did not just give up--there was a good reason he resigned. 

We actually played another game which continued from this position and he played a brilliant game and got a draw!    Probably we meant to play just one game and we had 2 games going by mistake.

and so he resigned one of the games. Youi are very wrong to disparage him when you don't know the facts. Just as you tried to disparage me when you did not know the facts. There is something wrong with you when you think it is necessary to try and disparage players FAR stronger than you!

I never said he was a bad player, I just said it's sketchy he has such a low rating... If the opening is even then why the hell would he abandon the game instead of an agreed draw?

Just to clarify, by drawn games to be evaluated by some future computer I obviously meant those at the highest levels. As far as a humans, again at the highest levels, not ever hindering a computer, well at some point human input will become unnecessary and a nano second distraction.

Arthur  chess will be shown to be a draw long before chess engines will get so good that they do not require humans. And say you are correct on your assumption== it does not really matter if computers become stronger than humans with computers and data bases and other help as the computers will see chess is a draw all by themselves.!?

Levent I have no idea what you are talking about in your short and unclear sentence?

Ok.  I'll ask again.  Where is the article you read?  Produce it.

Your arguments are often littered with assertions you don't back up.

Prometheus Youi have no idea why he had such a low rating/ cold be several reasons that are not "sketchy" Do you think you have the ability to judge him ln this situation??

You said the same thing about me until you were proven wrong.

I suggest you stop trying to judge others who clearly know way more about chess than you do?

Suggest you get back to the topic of this forum instead of trying to put down others?

btick,ler the article was posted here in this forum already.  I am not computer savvy but will try and find it?   okay I found the article--it was in  the post #3831 by Ghostess lady. 

I'm not sure how you've proven anything but OK.

Prometheus  have you looked at all the evidence I have given?

Try to be patient and understanding. Sometimes people say things here that don't make much sense. Like ending almost every sentence with a question mark?

/facepalm

That's the article Ghost posted that you are not agreeing with and why I asked for your own supporting article in the first place .

That article only supports the point.  Carlsen talks about other mistakes that he made earlier in the game, but he flat out says he does not understand the 30 move mate and how the engine determined his fortress could be broken, nor did Caruana understand it or capitalize on it, nor did any of the GM commentators fathom it.

I will quote the pertinent points:

"In today's round six of the 2018 world chess championship, Fabiano Caruana pressed in a piece-for-three-pawns ending, but missed an incredibly opaque forced win against Magnus Carlsen.

Yes, the Norwegian supercomputer "Sesse" announced mate in 30, but even top grandmaster commentators couldn't understand all the complexities of the missed opportunity."

"Count GM Ian Rogers among them. The veteran journalist was the one to inform Carlsen that his fortress should not have held, but then even he had trouble explaining all the pathways.

"I am not going to disagree with the computers, I just don't understand it," Carlsen said after being informed that 68...Bh4 was the key."

So, Carlsen is admitting what is inherently obvious from engine play and rating levels at this point.  Engines can calculate lines that are beyond GM's ability to comprehend.  It points to the fact that there exist principles/techniques in chess that are unused/undiscovered or are simply too complex to be followed OTB by the best chess minds even if figured out.  Many of these are doubtless not even new principles per se, but refinements on how to choose the value of principle X over principle Y in a given board position.  A knight on the rim is grim...except when it's not and works just great .  Can you articulate succinctly and absolutely the set of guiding rules you follow that tell you how when to play a knight to side of the board?  Or like an engine, do you simply calculate out that in a certain position the knight makes more sense there, and play the line you have calculated without understanding the exact ruleset that make a knight move to the side of board valuable or not?

The engines don't "understand" those principles either, if that makes you feel better.  They just find them through exhaustive search or trial and error learning "when he does X, I do Y, and Z% of the time that will win".

The key, though, is that there are such undiscovered principles in chess.  Which ergo means that humans can't understand "best play" without them, and thus...stick with me here...cannot reliably forecast whether chess is a forced draw or not.

If there were no engines, you yourself would use this game as an example of how chess isa forced draw, by relying on insufficient material advantages (K vs, K+N+N for example) that cannot force mate, or perpetual checks, or fortresses where the "winning" player cannot mate because they would have to give up too much material.

Where have I read this before... *snore*.

Proof equals evidence. So you are contradicting yourself. You haven't given evidence. You _guess_ it is a draw because of much experience. That's more like a religion; and not like proof / evidence.

In other posts, you also spoke of having partial evidence, and of a high percentage about the chance that it will be a draw. But for being able to answering the OP question, there is no difference at all if you are 99.9% (as above), 99.99999999999999999999% or 0.00000000000001% sure that you are right. Only exactly 100% counts, if you want proof / evidence.

BTW, I also think that chess is a draw. And I think chances are much higher than 99.99999999999999999999%. But it is a _fact_ that such is only a _guess_ of mine, and not proof / evidence in any way.

iicsa because you have no evidence does not mean evidence does not exist. I have given many different evidences--did you not see them,? There is a whole lot of evidence and that is why virtually every top player knows chess is a draw. 

Evidence is not proof. Think about how courts look at it.

There is the evidence to indict, and there is the evidence to convict.
In a criminal trial, the evidence must remove all reasonable doubt.
In a civil trial, the standard is lower: preponderance of evidence.


Is there any reasonable doubt that chess is not a draw? No.


Then, there is mathematical proof.
We need stronger computers to reach that standard, perhaps.