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

Let me know when all centaur tournaments end this same way, not just the one you wanted to point out as the exception that proves the rule.  Of course, by then the machine learning engines will have driven engines past the ability of humans to make a difference, but...I guess we can argue that when the time comes.

Might as well argue how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle.

btickler and Ptometheus that tournament of the VERY TOP  correspondence players is one more piece of evidence that chess is a draw. you can say it is not evidence but then you would be lying. That  and all the other evidence at the highest level of correspondence chess adds up to a lot.  If you had the skill level to understand correspondence chess [at the highest level] you might realize this?

You do not know all the evidence. and when evidence is given you try to knock it down .But as the years go by since this forum first started--the evidence keeps piling up.

Apparently you both do not see the ,obvious trend here. that has been going on for the past more than 100 years?

And no there is no analogy to debating religion. 

And it does not matter if it is just humans playing better or engines playing better or a combination of both--the trend is very similar.  The more we understand chess--the more we can fathom the ton of evidence that chess is a draw.

Nikki  the very top players spending over a year to play a correspondence chess tournament is not  anecdotal evidence. It is not just a story someone made up.  It really happened and I supplied proof that it really happened. You may not want to hear about this evidence because it under cuts what you have been saying.

You substituted the thread title for the question in the first post as criticism of my post, claiming that my paraphrase of the original question is inaccurate. That’s not a logical fallacy so much as a deliberate distortion.

Ponz is not relying on the failure of negative proof as his only evidence, as you well know.

The opposite of anecdote is data. Ponz’s argument proceeds from the latter.

Ponz

You have a lot of faith. No proof, but a ton of faith. At first I thought you were just really sure. But now I see the ton of evidence of just how much faith you have. Everyone else just says "I dont know" or "too early to tell" or "maybe" or "probably". But you say yes. Even though it can't be proven. That's like religious faith.

какво става бе педерасчета майка ви ше еба ако ви хвана, от механото до спирката на шутове ще ви закарам е и после ше има ало барон ела му свали ченето.

еее курво 

ако неме приемете ще се ядосам 

There seems to be several here who do not know what the word "evidence" means?

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true?

Over the years I have supplied a very large amount of evidence that chess is a draw. 

NOWHERE IN ANY OF THE DEFINITIONS OF "EVIDENCE"  I HAVE SEEN DOES IT SAY THAT EVIDENCE HAS TO BE 100% MATH BASED!!!. 

PATRIOT  There are several definitions of "faith" I have no idea which definition you are using?

But you are very wrong as I have supplied a whole lot of evidence that chess is a draw. 

Suggest you look at posting #3965 so you can see I have supplied much evidence that chess is a draw,

You are yet again saying things I already knew and things I didn't say, in particular, I never said draw rates and analysis in correspondence games wasn't evidence.

I did nothing of the kind. 

Didn't really criticize your post (thus the "respectfully"...did you take that sarcastically or something?), and I did not say anything aimed at your paraphrase accuracy.  You are a respectable poster.  I also have defended Ponz from people in the past, when they were saying it was BS that he was a high rated correspondence player.  

We may disagree here, but that's it.

Ponz, what you have done over the years is post a lot of circular logic, with a litany of reasons that all stem from your base premise...that human GMs (and you) know what constitutes best play in any given position and that increasing draws in high level chess indicate your conclusion. The one time you attempted to really create a solid list of evidence it was full of opinions and the same small set of talking points you have espoused here, each restated a half dozen different ways.  I wish I could find it for you, but there was not one memorable reason/unique argument I can Google for.

How do you explain why machine learning engines came along and shocked GMs and knocked traditional engines off their perch?  After all, the game of chess is almost exhausted, and there's nothing left but draws, with no room for improvement, and "best play" is a known quantity that proves chess is a forced draw.

How do you explain how TCEC championships have rising and falling rates of wins vs. draws?  They should be completely stagnant at this point.

well white always has an edge but it depends