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

How is it not a mathematical problem? The simple fact that a proof can in principle be done through the mini-max algorithm already shows it's a mathematical problem. Regardless, I see you want to keep insisting on your evidence even though I already told you I believe chess is a draw so I implore you to stop being redundant.

Trisecting the angle with a ruler and compass has been proven to be impossible.

I already mentioned the evidence to the contrary... Regardless, you guys are being hypocritical in your request given the fact that what you are asking for is in fact, a proof that chess is not a draw.

The burden of proof lies with the person claiming a forced outcome.  Obviously.  And at current levels of human technology it has a next to zero chance of being proven in our lifetimes.  It's more likely that God will come down and give us the answer while being pulled along in a rickshaw by Bobby Fischer than it is that it will be mathematically proven by human built computers crunching out the full 32-piece tablebase within the next 75-100 years.

So the claim is pointless, and will remain pointless.

So, you read the title of the thread, but not the first post. Please do not post in any threads that I start.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/true-or-false-chess-is-a-draw-with-best-play-from-both-sides?page=1

btickler and others The name of this forum is "true or false-chess is a draw with best play from both sides?"  The name of this forum is NOT "Is there math proof that chess is a draw with best play from both sides?"

So people can look at all the evidence and can give an answer to the question of this forum. Many say they don't know the answer to the question. That is fine--THEY don't know. But very few who state they don't know have looked at all the evidence given.

There are a very few who are so radical as to say NO evidence has been given.  That is simply a lie.

There are some who say there must be math proof before they can say chess is a draw. They are ignoring that there are other ways to know something without math proof. 

For probably hundreds of years it was known by the best players that checkers is a draw with best play.

This was way before checkers was math proven to be a draw. How did they know? They knew because of all the evidence that checkers was a draw. Of course they knew a lot about checkers. 

In this forum we see much the same thing. The players who have only a little knowledge about how best to play strong  chess will tend to say they don't know that chess is a draw? But the strongest  players do know chess is a draw. When Magnus or a strong correspondence player plays his games--his game plan always assumes chess is a draw from the opening position. If the weak players became a lot more skilled--they too would understand chess is a draw.

Of course the fact that virtually all the strongest players know chess is a draw does not in itself prove chess is a draw--it is just one piece of evidence.

Those who do not know if chess is a draw or not should not try to tell others that those others don't know that chess is a draw.

And it is unfortunate that some including Mr. Prometheus go out of their way to disparage my chess ability. 

Ponz

You are just repeating yourself. Everything you say, you've said before. You believe chess is a draw. Maybe it is. It PROBABLY is. But you can't prove it and neither can anyone else. You've mentioned checkers before, but that's not a good example because there is a first move advantage in chess, not in checkers. With "best play" the very best first move in checkers makes no difference. Same with tic tac toe. Now with horrible play, yes there is a first move advantage in checkers and tic tac toe. 

But this topic is about best play. And so far, nobody knows if best play produces a draw or win. Which means nobody knows if there is a first move advantage in chess. Right now there is, but only because of our limited knowledge. So of course you don't know chess is a draw. Neither does anyone else.

Someone else compared it to believing in God. Sure you might say you "know" it, but you really just believe. This belief probably comes from others not seeing the light, not believing what you believe, not weighing the evidence like you weigh it. But in the end chess is a math problem, so it doesn't matter how much you believe. Only proof matters. 100% is the only number that works. Otherwise we will just have to agree to disagree that nobody knows yet what the best outcome is. 

I've read it all.  As proven by my posts throughout this thread over the years.  You seem unaware of this.  Have you read it?  Ponz is trying to claim proof of the positive by asking for a refutation of the negative,  It's a logical fallacy. 

If the OP is inconsistent in the titling vs. the content, that's Ponz's problem, but the the subject of the post, along with Ponz's claims here, make it quite clear what he is going after.  You're also missing the context of Ponz starting this thread when he could not make any headway in the "Will computers solve chess?" thread.

Anyone who believes that chess is a forced win in the computer age is delusional. Modern computers have proven that chess is a draw. In the top levels of correspondence chess(where engines are allowed) there is a 97% draw rate. 

As i assume chess is a mental game you might wanna get good sat scores this i the first video I have made on it give me feedback and subscribe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to5CTBwgwBo

If chess were a forced draw, why isn't the draw rate 99.99999% or even 100%? 97% sure leaves a lot of room for some other possibility. 

Take your advertising elsewhere.

Obviously because Modern engines and correspondence players aren't perfect.

Now that I think about it, if modern computers have proven chess is a draw, the draw rate would be 100%. Proven is proven. There would never be any wins, by either side. Unless the computer made a mistake. In which case it wouldn't be proven. 

And eliminating 97% of games (ever position therein) still leaves over 10^40 possibilities for a winning line.

Yes. Which means they aren't performing best play. Which means it's  not proven. You said it was. 

Do you know what a hyperbole is?

Nikki because you cannot see the evidence [or don't understand the evidence]--does not mean the evidence is not there.

At the Very top levels of correspondence chess there is all draws --not just 97%  Top levels of correspondence chess is much more than a human with an engine.

And as you state that you only need one line to to reject the null hypothesis of "draw" BUT after trillions of games played there has never been one such line.