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

You really need to go back and read the last several pages if you haven’t already. I have demonstrated that proof that chess is a draw is impossible, and that your evidence absolutely doesn’t constitute proof. It is 100% irrefutable. And pretty much everyone agrees.

I also stated that you would inevitably ignore it and start talking about your proof again, which, of course, has now been confirmed.

Ponzie: I specifically direct you to posts 4082 and 4090.

4093 is also instructive. Please read this and respond directly. Do not just once again talk about your evidence.

Nikki  You  ignore all the EVIDENCE that chess is a draw in order to try and prove your point. 

And a lot of my evidence has been confirmed.  You are so closed minded that you try to dismiss all  EVIDENCE given. I doubt very much that you even are aware of some of the EVIDENCE  that has been given?

Why, thank you. Who doesn't seek approval!?

Regarding 4093 it does not matter how many people believe something --it is either true or false and this does not matter who believes it or not?  There are probably thousands of things people believed in the past as true but later proven false.

Yep. There you go again with the same old s.. stuff and ignoring my airtight arguments. I knew it would happen.

The twist? Now you’re avoiding answering them by claiming that I’m ignoring your evidence. Incorrect. I am directly responding by saying that your evidence comes nowhere near the threshold of proof, and I fact it can’t possibly.

I really can’t deal with you anymore Ponzie. Honestly, you just are making arguments that make no sense. You’re argumentative, but you’re non-responsive. It’s like a make a point and you say “yeah, but I have two jars of peanut butter at my house!!!!”

I mean that’s an answer. And it’s said forcefully. But it makes no sense.

It's more like "yeah, but I have two jars of PEANUT BUTTER at my house!!!!!!"

---

"Nikki  You  ignore all the EVIDENCE that chess is a draw in order to try and prove your point. 

And a lot of my evidence has been confirmed.  You are so closed minded that you try to dismiss all  EVIDENCE given. I doubt very much that you even are aware of some of the EVIDENCE  that has been given?"

Btw, I really don't have an opinion, but this is fun to read.

And you completely missed the point of 4093. The point was that there were strong reasons to believe Euler’s conjecture. There was “evidence” that it was true. It always seemed to be the case. Lots of people were absolutely sure.

Does this ring a bell?

Then 200 years later when the technology developed, it was proven to be false.

Do I need to spell it out any more clearly than that? Do I? Please tell me I don’t.

It's a long and precarious road to try to make the leap from being told you're incorrect and deciding your independent thought is being "stifled".  Some people might be able to make that leap.  Nobody here is this thread, though.  Going along with the assumption that chess is a forced draw cannot be construed as either independent or creative.

P.S. I don't really care if you have me blocked.  You've shown your measure long ago, and I don't foresee wanting to post on any threads you put forth.

Which Euler's conjecture?

Good lord man. Putting it in bold upper case does not make it any more true. You’re just ignoring and repeating as I said you would do. Your evidence does not constitute proof. It’s a conjecture. There were millions of example of Euler’s conjecture being true. The kind of evidence that you’re using.

But one example was found and now poof, it’s gone.

Chess is a draw is conjecture, pure and simple. You can scream about your precious evidence til you are blue in the face, but it’s nowhere near proof.

Please tell me you get it. Please? I’m begging here.

@michael: his sum of powers conjecture. It’s easy to google. No need to summarize it.

Nikki  I understood the point of 4093  . And my response was to agree with you on that point.  That point was not new at all and had been discussed before in  these forums. And it is and was obvious that there are many things believed to be true that are not true. Just about all things believed to be true have some evidence. 

Agreed - wasn't trying to waste your time sorry.  Just making a joke because Euler is so prolific and has his name on so many different things 

I would say that 'proof' might have different senses depending on the viewpoint.  From a pure mathematical viewpoint I completely agree with you;  a statement is not true unless it can demonstrated universally true.  Experimental science though seems to accept a law if they get statistically significant evidence that it holds (theory of evolution, etc. / law of gravitation etc.).

Of course in the context of chess games, I think our statistical sample size may be far too small compared to all possible chess games to say anything meaningful, but that is an independent discussion, I guess.

 

If you agree with that, then you are obligated to believe that there is no proof that chess is a draw.

We can agree that it’s probably a draw, but beyond that we’re treading into very dangerous territory.

Is chess a draw? Probably.

@michael. Sorry, I have to disagree strongly. At its core, that chess is a draw is a mathematical question. There are x number of possible games and none are forced wins.

You can’t use inductive reasoning to solve the question, right? If we just sample games, then we know there are decisive games.

If we only look at draws, we’ll, you know, that has obvious problems.

There’s just no way to know which games to sample. High quality games? What does that even mean? There’s no way to know if a game involved a best response because there are a beastly high number of other lines that could’ve been played. It’s not a question that can be solved using any kind of statistical method.

I feel like basically all scientific proof would need to be qualified this way.  'Theory of evolution is probably true'.  'This vaccine will probably work.' . 'Einstein's model for gravitation probably holds', etc..

I think there is a root understanding that truth in empirical science is probabilistic only, to avoid having to tediously qualify it every time.

I guess one difference here is that physical problems can't be perfectly mathematically modeled, while chess is a well-defined game.  

I'm interested in whether or not we can say chess is probably a draw, even.  We have such a small sample of all total possible games, that I'm not sure it's enough.  But of course, most 'possible games' are rubbish, but one would have to have a way to objectively filter them out.