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

btickler  In that article Carlsen admitted he made many mistakes in that particular game so the game was by no means a perfect game.  We all know that the best computers play better than the best humans. We have known that for decades. Heck after I won the USA Correspondence Championship with a score of 13 1/2 out of 14--the next time that Championship was played the winners did not have near that high score and it was obvious computers had advanced and some of the players were using chess engines [as there were many draws.] I did not wish to buy and use a chess engine and that is why I stopped playing in the USA Championships.

So that article did say that Carlsen could not figure out that very complex 30 or so move endgame [and that was another mistake]  And Carlsen did point out some of his mistakes. So what is your point?

I think you are saying in  some instances humans cannot "reliably forecast if chess is a draw or not" ?

BUT there is no reason that humans cannot team up with computers to examine games!!!!

A game with many mistakes in it has nothing to do re the question is chess a draw when there are no mistakes!

There are many reasons Carlsen and other top players know chess is a draw. And a mistake filled game just proves that they are not as strong as computers. [and we already knew this]

Your statement "if there were no engines, you yourself would use this game as an example as how chess is a forced draw." Forgive the expression but that is total BS as Carlsen himself pointed out his errors which came before that complex endgame!! Also you do not seem to realize that Carlsen played his game with errors under tight time limits. A top player with all the time in the world can very often find mistakes made by top GMs because of time time difference. 

Yes way back when there were no chess engines which were of GM strength there was somewhat less evidence that chess was a draw. But there still was enough evidence so that the top players knew chess is a draw. At that time I was crushing all my opponents but I had enough chess knowledge and evidence to know chess is a draw.

Now that computers and especially humans with computers and data bases and other things the top correspondence players use--there is even more evidence chess is a draw!  As chess play becomes more and more stronger the evidence that chess is a draw becomes more and more compelling.

Of course, but the question of the game state of chess is a mathematical problem, not a court ruling, let alone an empirical statement.

That's a lot of text to essentially agree that humans don't play perfectly and therefore cannot understand what constitutes "best play" except as an approximation.  Also, I have been around since the first chess engines myself, and I know the history, thanks.

Hey, man.

Computer said that you did more than one mistake.

And I don't know... why did the computer point to only one your mistake ? )

You missed a pawn which your opponent took with his Knight... And you did the wrong move with your Rook too.

So two mistakes as minimum.

bickler  I very much disagree with your conclusion Yes about 99.5% of humans do not have enough chess knowledge to come to a good idea of what is best play. But there are some humans who do know a heck of a lot about best play.  Good to know the history of chess engines then you should also know as chess engines get stronger--there are more and more draws--which is one indication that

chess is a draw.

Also in that article there was no indication that Carlsen did not know his mistakes in that one particular game.

I think that one could make that case. But, I see people assuming it, not making it.

Point is: plenty of evidence has been presented in this thread that chess is a draw. The evidence is much stronger than anything presented to the contrary, but still falls short of mathematical proof.

The OP asked for a particular sort of evidence to refute his claim. No one has come forward with it.

Rather, they have claimed that he failed to prove a point that in fact all the evidence presented here supports.

There has been some limited evidence for chess not being a draw in this thread, namely, the increase of the ratio between white and black victories and the complexity of the opening position which dwarfs the complexity of endgames that had been long misevaluated. Regardless, you are right in that it's by far the most likely case that chess is a draw.

Getting aside from that, it's clear plenty of people in this thread including ponz are claiming chess is a draw, that's not the same as assuming chess is a draw.

Prometheus   I both assume chess is a draw AND claim chess is a draw. This is based on a whole lot of evidence gathered over the years. Most of this evidence you are either not aware of or don't understand.

[it is very obvious you do not know most of the evidence]

A 'good idea' is not enough for having proof / evidence that chess is a draw. One must have a 'perfect idea'. 'A heck of a lot' is not 100%. One must have 100% knowledge to be sure that it is a draw. Not 'a heck of a lot', which is always less than 100%.

'chess is a draw'

The way you give your views all the time, it can be compared to the assertion

'god exists'

For both is no proof / evidence.

At this moment, evidence does not exist. At least, no-one has shown any. If there was evidence, than there surely would be a wikipedia page which states it (because it would be major major news), and it would be all over the news for weeks. There will probably not be such a wikipedia page in my lifetime, because getting any evidence is too far away, if ever found.

Although I didn't read all 8000 posts, I've read the first 8 pages and some others. (One would expect that OP has given enough time on the first 8 pages.) And I did only see assertions, I nowhere saw you giving any proof / evidence.

btickler you underestimate the ability of humans or sometimes humans with several aids including computers to understand chess and to understand what a perfect game is?

Just to give you one of a few examples --a few years ago I was looking at a game between two Super GrandMasters. On move 4 Super GM "A" made a mistake where he would lose the game by force if his Super GM opponent had found the correct continuation!  

But then Super GM "B' made the mistake of not finding the correct continuation!!!

I found the two mistakes. People could not believe me. They put the first position on their computers and their computers could not find the mistake?  Later a well know IM told me I was wrong and gave his own analysis. I proved him wrong. There are a few players who have very good abilities to find errors in chess games.

Like prometheus already said it (in other words) on previous page: how courts would look at it, has nothing to do with this topic.

Reasonable doubt is a gazillion times more than enough doubt to tell us that the assertion 'chess is a draw' is just that: an assertion.

Even if you would take the case 'chess is a draw' to court, any sane judge or jury can only conclude that 'there is no evidence for that'. Any judge of jury member without deep mathematical knowledge has no business being there, in such a court case.

I iterate: I myself think chess is a draw. But I know that there is no evidence given by anyone. It would be globally all over the news for weeks.

You OVERestimate the ability of humans to understand what a perfect game is. There can be only a perfect game, if you know all possible outcomes by fact. No-one does that (yet. If ever).

iicsa  just because you are not aware of the ton of evidence that chess is a draw does not mean there is no evidence.

Wikipedia will not post chess is a draw until it is math proven chess is a draw--so your assumption about Wikipedia is incorrect. also there is no analogy between proving God exists and proving chess is a draw. I won't go in to the details of THAT as we are not supposed to talk about or debate religion.

But if you want to learn if your analogy is correct you can go to OPEN DISCUSSION and they will set you straight.

There are reasons why many low rated players think there is no proof chess is a draw and that virtually all the top players know chess is a draw.

You could start such case in court, but if the judge / jury has basic knowledge of math, than ponz should lose the case. I did not read all 8000 posts (it would need weeks, and by then, there will be hundreds more posts), but I didn't see any evidence at all on the first 8 pages (should be more than enough to show evidence. Which is not shown). I only saw assertions, assumptions and other non-proof posts. 'Chess is a draw' is a mathemetical claim, and you speak about strong evidence. 'Strong' is not enough, It is not nearly enough. Only 100% is enough.

iiisa  Again you make a glaring error. You state "There can only be a perfect game, if you know all the possible outcomes by fact." two class D players could play a perfect game by chance. A perfect game can exist without anyone knowing it exists. There are many planets which exist and have existed for millions of years without anybody knowing they existed. Earth has existed for billions of years before man appeared on  earth.  For something to exist--there is no requirement  that people know it exists.

There is no evidence. Evidence can only be mathematical here.

If you don't know that you did play a perfect game or not, then there is no value in that for usage in the claim 'chess is a draw'. If you can't present the evidence, it has no value.

Also, in this case, there is no difference whatsoever if one is a class D player of a class A player.

iicsa if you looked at the first 8 pages of this forum and did not see any evidence that chess is a draw then you are ignorant of high level chess and/or basic  logic. Maybe if you are reincarnated as a chess GM you will see the evidence?