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

Actually it is you who brought up things such as considering what the players think makes some difference in a perfect game. It is what the players actually play which makes a difference.

I did not say anything about considering weanesses in players you did when you said agreeing to a draw when there are some winning chances is a blunder.

"perfect games" have nothing to do with what the players think or if they have winning chances. "perfect games" are games without errors.

Even a player who has been playing one week can sometimes play a perfect game.

You seem confused as to what is a perfect game.

How do you know that it was not a mistake to offer/accept the draw? Nobody knows the result of best play from that situation. The game may have no mistakes, but we do not know that. It is possible (although unlikely) that all six playing decisions were mistakes in that game.

Oh, am I indeed the one who is confused about it? Good one. Now you're being just funny.

A "perfect" game has certainly nothing to do with making or accepting ridiculous draw offers in positions where, according to all existing knowledge, a side has perfectly present winning chances with no immediate risks associated with continuing the game. Unless, as I said, you can prove how offering and accepting a draw after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 was the best possible decision either side could possibly have made.

Oh, and one more thing - if there has been one player bent on playing a "perfect" game like none other, it must have been Bobby Fischer - and he would have never proposed or accepted a draw, unless a draw was the best he could hope for in a given postition. Which does not stricly prove anything, of course. It's just a side remark which might be interesting in juxtaposition to your hypotheses.

It does not matter what might have happened if a drawn game had been continued. What matters is the moves actually made.

And yes I do not assume that players who agree to a draw made a mistake to either offer or accept the draw.

But if their judgment was good or bad in accepting a draw this also has no bearing on  if the game played was perfect.  What matters is the moves themselves.

And yes in the example given I know there were no errors in any of the 4 moves.  How do I know?  From my own chess experience and judgment..

of course if you put those moves in a chess engine it will not show an error. [so it is not just me] 

I am not a player who will accept draws easily either.  I once played 4000 games in a row where I did not accept a draw.  But this has no bearing if any of those 4000 games was perfect for both sides.

A perfect game is a game without errors.  If someone makes an error in a game then he has blown his own chances of playing a perfect game.

It is no  coincidence that in Centaur correspondence play up to 95% of the games end in a draw.

It is also no coincidence that out of billions of games played noone has been able to show a game where someone won without an error from his opponent.

So, the question is  true or false is the game of chess a draw with perfect play from both sides. And I say "yes it is and the evidence is overwhelming."

Some will say "undetermined" mainly because they do not see the evidence or because they require 100% certainty and that is fine.

No.

your defenition of perfect is wrong

"I takes you from a drawing position to a loosing position"

that implies that the position was drawn in the begenning.

Do this.

play a game correspondense game.

when someone is clearly winning takeback to where the mistake was and allow them to correct it and continue.

no one has shown a game where their opponents haven't made a mistake and still lost because they don't have the time to.But if you look at games of Morphy,Tal or any attacking player you might find one.But you might just say the move which prevented opponent from succesfully being able to defend against the attack was a mistake however reasonable it was when it was played.This can be as early as the first move too so you have to give the exact defenition for perfect play if you want an exact answer.

95% of the games are probably draws because neither player was good enough to take advantage of the opponents mistake simply because the mistake was so subtle.

In future there might be a line which says 1. e4 is a mistake because a of a certain new move thatno one bothered to look at which is a 100% sure win for white.

conclusion perfect moves are impossible until chess is solved and after that it won't be chess anymore and OR....

You can say that a perfect move is a position that doesn't make your position worse.

since both sides will be playing perfect moves the score will remain the same for both white and black from the beginning.

and since white starts with an advantage in the beginning this implies that white wins games with perfect moves.

If that makes sense, then any engine vs engine game should immediately end in a draw with no moves whatsoever having been made.

How can you expect your arguments to be taken seriously, if you claim 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 1/2-1/2 to be not only a game to be taken seriously, but a "perfect game"?? Why not draw the darn game immediately then, without bothering to move any old chessman even half an inch? You said that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 are all perfect moves anyway, so what's the difference? Is the "perfect game" supposed to mean not playing a game at all?

As "conjecture" is somewhat akin to "hunch" or "guess", I am with you on that one.

Again, invalid assumption. The starting position might turn out being a zugzwang one, which would start White out with a disadvantage.

And I say "indeterminate it is and the strict evidence is non-existent".

I agree with you on that so the final answer is simply "Until chess is solved like tic tac toe where computers can memorizee each and every set of moves easily we cannot determine perfect play.forget the result of such a game."

Sorry but there is more than one way to gather evidence.  We do not have to wait possibly millions of years until a computer can solve chess to gather evidence.

It is a failure of imagination to assume that the only way to tell if chess is a draw is to wait until some computer tells us.

Some people get stuck with "The only way I know to determine if chess is a draw or not is to wait for possibly millions of years until a computer solves chess and since this is the only way I can imagine solving the question if chess a draw--it is the ONLY WAY TO solve that problem"

In other words just because you can only think of one way to solve that question--does not mean there are no other ways to solve that question."

Ok then.

(my previous statement)+ or some human does so.

fine?

lol you sound like a robot.

Plus, only a fool would say White has no advantage here, yet it is a draw :

"advantage" is a long way off "winning advantage". Of course, if you consider two perfect players, such a position is completely drawn with no advantage at all ; but then the claim that the first move is an advantage, which relies on the statistics of master games, is unproven.

quadriple  I have no idea what you mean by "some human does so"

Some human does what?

jaaas is smarter than ponz111

People hear that the only way to solve if chess a draw is by using a 32 piece data base which would be way in the future if ever.

It has become tradition that the only way so solve if chesss a draw is by using that method.  So, very few people think of other methods--they accept what has become "tradition".

However there are other ways to gather sufficient evidence on the question "Is chess a draw with best play"

But some are so engrained in the 32 piece data base they do not even think of any other method to resolve the question per this forum and in fact get upset when someone suggests otherwise.

johnsonsmithson

The truth is every game I have ever won it required a mistake by my opponent before I could win.  Those who do not believe this just do not have a good understanding of chess.

I brought up that one of the chess laws is that "Players can agree to draws" because one of the basis for argument against my position indicated otherwise.

I also do understand logic.

I never argued that "there is a  99.99% chance that the the Reimann hypothesis is 99.9 is true" So what you are doing is misquoting me or using an incorrect anology. This is a form of the "Strawman Argument" where you know this is something I do NOT support but you pretend I might support it and use it against me.

Also saying you bet ponz never went to college is a personal attack to try and cut down my credentials.