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

Sorry I didn't see this post till after I posted my previous comment. 

Yes, I think you're right that the initial question, "Is chess a draw with best play on both sides" can't be answered statistically, because you really need to know which plays on both sides are best, which implies certainty about every case.  

You're right about the sampling as well of course, you would need to make some additional (perhaps unfounded) assumptions about the distribution of the population you are sampling, etc..

I think black wins by force because by moving first white creates a weakness.

@michael - fun fact: the refutation of Euler’s sum of powers conjecture holds the record for shortest paper ever in an academic journal. It was only a couple of lines, something like regarding Euler’s hypothesis, here’s a case where it doesn’t hold true.

White is in Zugzwang on move 1) ??

I hope so.  I hope so. just for the irony.

Haha, I only jest, but that would be the result I hope for.

Ooh! That must have felt good - get that baby published!

I've heard that there is offered prize money for proving the Riemann Hypothesis true, but not for finding a counterexample.

@marks - theoretically, you may be onto something. White commits on the first move, and it may be black who gets the advantage because it actually chooses the best first response. Yes! Give me five minutes, I think I’ve cracked the code. Soon chess will be ruined for everyone.

I think an interesting way to try to prove Black does not have a win with best play on both sides would be to show that there is a move number n, for which,  any position white can attain with the move on this move number, they can also attain with black to move.  

In other words, if white can always lose a tempo by force, it seems to me they should have at least a draw on best play.

@michael - have you thought about changing your user name to buzzkill? 😭😭😭

Marks1420   I don not'   believe for a minute that you think Black wins?  I think you are joking us?.

GMprop   I already have.  In fact the whole Ruy Lopez opening is a draw with best play.

Nikki   You post 4093 was not instructive to me. I knew at age 8 that many things believed and many things there is some evidence for--are not true. Why did you bring up something so obvious? 

nikki you think that chess is a draw is probably true.  How did you determine it is probably true? Did you just pull that idea out of your hat??

Actually since you have a mind--you paid attention to the EVIDENCE.  EVIDENCE that you know of. Unfortunately there is a whole lot of EVIDENCE you are unaware of. .And there is very probably some EVIDENCE that you would need a higher skill level at chess to understand?

This is why virtually all the grandmasters know chess is a draw. They have the knowledge and skill level to look at the EVIDENCE AND THEN KNOW ,CHESS IS A DRAW.

Ponzie please. Try again. Try thinking *really* hard.
1. That chess is always a draw is a mathematical conjecture. It is proposed that in the total number of chess games possible, no possible combination of white moves gives it a forced win.
1a. Euler’s conjecture was that in all cases, the relationship he conjectured was true.
2. Examples of games do not exhaust the total number of possible move combinations. A large number of games have been examined but only a total fraction of the total.
2a. For two hundred years mathematicians tried to find examples, but couldn’t, including some of the best mathematical minds.
3. Only one counter example in chess disproves chess is always a draw.
3a. Only one counter example to Euler’s conjecture was needed to disprove it.
4. Many chess players believe chess is a draw despite no definitive proof.
4a. Most mathematicians believed the conjecture to be true despite no definitive proof.
5. We don’t have the technology to test every possibility.
5a. Before the 1960s, they didn’t have the technology to look through the millions and millions of possibilities. But after looking at millions and millions of possibilities with a computer search, they found one example.

It only took one example. In chess it will only take one example. One. That’s it. The difference is that in the 1960s they just had to search millions to find a counter example. In chess there are 10^85 or more permutations.

You keep talking about proof. Your “evidence” is exactly analogous to those mathematicians trying to find counter examples by hand. They looked at a lot of cases, saw that the relationship always held, and assumed that it always would.

They were wrong. You could also be proven wrong. All it takes is one case in 10^85 (or more) possible games.

Please tell me you understand. Please don’t say something so non-responsive as “I know things can be proven wrong.” Please don’t. It’s silly at this point.

@Nikkilikechikki - your argument would be much more persuasive if you would write every seventh word in all caps.

I'm fully serious. I have PROOF that black wins by force.

You are just too CLOSED MINDED to accept that white creates a weakness on the first move.

there we go; much better.

HEDGEHOGS

.  btw