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

I didn't see any evidence there, because no evidence was given there. 'High level chess' is not enough; yoo need '100% level chess' in order know that the claim 'chess is a draw' is true or not. Without math there is no 'Basic logic'. Even if I would reincarnate as someone who would play a million games and win them all (against the strongest players), I still would still not have any evidence at all. A million games is dwarfed by the number of possible games.

Actually, I agree that 'chess is a draw'. But I have no evidence for it. Neither have you, neither does Magnus Carlsen, neither does anyone else.

iicsa   but there are many chess players [at the highest levels] who do know when they play a perfect game. And they do have evidence they played a perfect game. And some of that evidence has been given here. Unfortunately you have not seen the evidence and if you did see the evidence your chess is not at a high enough level to evaluate it.

 also one does not have to play 100% chess to know chess is a draw. There were many checker players who did not play 100% at checkers who knew checkers was a draw--long before it was math proven.

There is none such player. They can assert it, but they can't proof it.

Ponz, even if all 7.5 billion people on earth would agree with you on 'chess is a draw': as long as no one of those 7.5 billion people can show proof, the claim 'chess is a draw' will be still unjustified.

iicsa you are making the same mistake again. Chess is a draw with best play is a fact. Facts are true if nobody believes them or if everybody believes them.

You present your claim 'chess is a draw' as fact. Somebody who says it is a fact that x=y, is the person who needs to present the proof that x=y.

Carlsen was building a fortress to hold the endgame.  He succeeded in building it, but was unaware it was *not* a fortress and that the engine had a M30 continuation.  Caruana didn't know it either.  So, Carlsen made a mistake.  He then said he did not understand the M30 line.  Ergo, he does not understand his mistake in building the fortress, and he would therefore repeat the same mistake again in a similar position...due to lack of understanding of "best play" in that position.  If human beings cannot guarantee what best play is, then they cannot claim chess is a forced draw.  Period.  End stop.

As for your "4th move and busted" story...well, never mind.  I'm tired of arguing with someone who doesn't remember things as they happened anymore.  You have already copped to having dementia, so, you just need to realize that your memory is fallible at this point, and that you are making assertions that you can no longer reliably back up.  That's fine, that you remember things whichever way you like, as long as you don't try to weaponize your "rememberences" in your arguments.

Complete bullshift. It's like saying that the theory of relativity is wrong because poor Albert could not run at the speed of light to prove it.

That is not an analogy.

btickler  No! that position of the fortess will Not come up again in Carlsen's games. Do you really think Carlsen  is  so stupid as to deliberately make the same mistake twice?? He gave several better alternatives before that endgame came up. Youi are not being reasonable here.

I may have some memory problems but I know what I am saying and did say about the 2 super Grandmasters both blundering on the 4th move. This opening variation was discussed for weeks here on chess.com until all had to see that I proved what I was talking about .

Here is the opening line where the two super GMs made the mistake 4. Bb5 loses but Black did not find the winning line.

Oh yes it is. There is not just a single proofing method in chess, as ell as several other sciences.

Squaring the circle is fairly easy, although not possible by using just classical geometry. 

No, it isn't an analogy.

If there is no proof, then you can't know if the claim 'chess is a draw' is true or false.

I think chess is a draw. But I have no proof, and neither does anyone else.

As I said, it doesn't matter if there is a "whole lot of evidence", this is still a mathematical problem and as such, a proof is requiered to make a claim, then again, this has been said ad nauseum here.

There has been zero evidence to the contrary. The original question was simple: post a game where the loser did not err. No one has done that.

Why is it a mathematical problem? Make your case.

Steinitz, who sought to put chess on a scientific foundation, asserted confidently that chess is a draw with best play. A century and a half later, we have far more reason to share his confidence. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that chess is a draw with best play.

The theory of relativity has a mathematical proof that has borne out.  Next.

It's funny how many chess players seem to think they know about what constitutes "solved" for the game they play.  By definition, a "solved game", as defined for any and all games, requires a mathematical proof, either a "strong" or "weak" proof.  There is no such proof for chess.  Ergo, not solved.  Forced outcome for chess, *not proven*.  This is a computational problem, not really a chess problem.  

If chess *is* proved to be a forced draw, then engines can follow that never lose again, even to themselves.  Although let me be clear...that is true in that order, but the reverse is not true, even if chess engines cease to be able to do anything but draw *that is still not proof of chess being a forced draw*.

Respectfully, that is the not the question posed by the subject line of this thread, and posting such a game would be meaningless to that question, as nobody, neither human or engine, is currently capable of making the claim "this game has no errors".  

Chess players are free to decide that it's all but assured that chess is a forced draw (or win).  As long as they don't claim it's proven when it is not.  Ponz has made this claim, after he broke this thread off from the "Will computers solve chess?" thread years ago to better control his narrative .

Everyone agrees evidence can exist without anyone knowing about it. I think the point iicsa is making is that if evidence exists that proves chess is a draw, nobody has seen it.  There could be a perfect game, but nobody has seen it. Claiming it exists isn't the same as proving it exists. Anyone can claim anything. This topic is about what it likely, based on what we know so far. 

Others put it better than me. Chess is a math problem. Only 100% counts. Being 99.9999999% sure of something (when it comes to chess possibilities) leaves a LOT of ways the best result could be something else.