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

btickler You are so wrong!

Yes, I Can claim to know a perfect game. Just because you say I can't does not mean you are correct. If I had the time and information of games played by certain players--I could point out hundreds of perfect games.

Your statement that top correspondence players are no stronger than any other human GM shows your ignorance.  They are Far stronger than the average GM. In fact they are Far stronger than Carlsen. And I have explained in detail why they are far stronger. Maybe you missed it or did not understand why they are far stronger than than any human alone!  

Also they are not 500- rating points lower than a decent engine. They are Stronger than all engines. Again you seem very ignorant of the basic facts about correspondence chess at the highest levels? This also has been explained to you.

No, I di not vastly over estimate my own abilities. even at this point in my life. I do have a 55 game winning streak in games I participate in. I do have a record of beating every GM I ever played.  I do have a record of figuring out in a few minutes the correct continuations of positions that the highest chess engines could not understand. So my current strength would be down a little bit from the past but still at my published rating of over 2500. I do not claim to be as good as Carlsen or any super GM or any engine. But I understand why the best correspondence players play the strongest chess of any human or machine.

So you mention you have played postal/correspondence chess? How did you actually do?

Did you know I once was the strongest postal/correspondence player in the USA?

You also [from your posting] do not understand how and why Centaur chess can be so strong at the very highest levels? Centaur Chess and correspondence chess are equivalent and much stronger than you think at the very highest levels. You are apparently just ignorant on how correspondence chess at the highest levels works? Your postings in #4349 show this.

And no, I have almost no knowledge of "B" level chess. In my very first USCF tournament game I beat an expert with the black side of the Ruy Lopez.

You know what you judge to be a perfect game, but you don't understand the game at a perfect level...so you are a mistaken when you judge a game to be perfect.  As is every single other GM or engine mistaken in that claim.  

I said players, not players + engine.  Correspondence players minus their engines are not any stronger than any other GMs.  You cannot define "player" as both.  Not in this context.

I know all about your record, Ponz...I have defended you to other people that questioned your credentials in the past on threads here...which you would remember, if you were still remembering everything the way you used to.  But you're not.  That's why you repeat the same arguments over and over as if they were new, and that's why you are able to convince yourself you've posted some body of evidence that you have not.  You're playing your games with engines and the engine is hiding your decline somewhat.  

I played postal chess, and I play votechess and daily chess, I am not currently playing centaur chess, but I have.  I do fine.

The B class comment was in response to Lola's drive-by ad hominem.  She's annoyed because I had to block her on another thread.

btickler   I do not have to understand the game at a perfect level level to be able to point out hundreds of perfect games. If you knew a lot more about chess and correspondence chess you would understand this.  Just as a partial example--the Ruy Lopez opening  [1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6

3. Bb5 ] has been analyzed to a draw. So to show some perfect games all I would have to do is to carefully collect some Ruy Lopez correspondence games played at the highest level,  They are all draws of course. The very top correspondence players know this and thus if they have Black--they are delighted to play against that well known opening.

Regarding checkers many of the very top players often play perfect games but it would be hard to prove this on a math basis un less it was a well known opening [such as the Ruy Lopez in chess]

You do not seem to know what a top correspondence player is?? A top level correspondence level player Always has several tools to help him. One of the tools is Always a chess engine. There is no such thing as a top correspondence player who does not use the tools available to him.  [Maybe this is one of the reasons you make very incorrect messages about correspondence chess--you don't even know what a top correspondence player is?]

A racecar [notice the palindrome] driver is not a racecar driver if he/she does not have a racecar to drive. He/she may be a former racecar driver however just as I am a former correspondence chess player.

Regarding my own playing ability.  I am NOT playing my games with engines.  I stopped playing serious correspondence chess decades ago because I wanted to play correspondence chess sans engines.  [I did play 2 exhibitions where I played Black in all games against the best chess.com players who would play me.] These 2 simuls were played with both sides using engines--on Chess.com. 

What you seem to not understand about chess is while someone like me can lose a little bit of memory and that is a minus BUT my chess knowledge increases year after year after year and that More than compensates for the slight memory loss.  

And another thing that is very obvious is there is a reason why I repeat the same arguments over and over again?? It is because people come on  with certain  arguments I have already refuted and that is why my arguments are sometimes repeated. Yes, I know when someone comes up with an argument I have already refuted. But also over the years I have come up with additional/new evidence why chess is a draw. So saying I forgot arguments I have already presented is simply not true and is an ad hominem that several like to use to disparage me--including you.

If you played Centaur chess in the past--didn't you use a chess engine? [just curious]

I did not know where your class B comment came from?

@Ponz111 

Hi Ponz! I know you've probably already answered this in one of the previous 4000 posts, but When you state,  

"I do not have to understand the game at a perfect level to be able to point out hundreds of perfect games. If you knew a lot more about chess and correspondence chess you would understand this", 

If you don't understand the game at a perfect level, how can you know which moves are perfect and which are not?  Are you saying you can recognize perfect moves when you see them, but can't necessarily come up with them yourself?  

Also, if you know chess is is a draw, why don't you publish your results and get the credit for solving chess? 

MichaelM You ask if chess is a draw, why don't I publish my results and get credit for solving chess?

In one sense I already have--through hundreds of pieces of evidence I have presented in these forums over the years. But the evidence is so varied and so huge that there is probably not one person here who has viewed all the evidence. And most or many who view the evidence do not have sufficient chess knowledge to understand all the evidence.

If you mean "solving chess" as proving by math alone that chess is a draw--that is impossible as we do not have and very probably will never have the technology to math solve chess.

You also ask if I do not understand the game at a perfect level how can I point out perfect moves?  The answer lies with correspondence chess at the highest levels. and I do not play correspondence chess anymore, However the opening--The Ruy Lopez has been analyzed to a draw. So when a correspondence game at the very highest levels starts with 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. Bb5  --The game always ends in a draw as that particular opening variation has been analyzed to a draw. So all such Ruy Lopez games [played at the highest level] are games with no mistakes and are perfect games. I don't play those games as I do not play correspondence chess any more.

True, it's a draw

Interesting;  what I notice is a difference in paradigm.  

As a mathematician by trade, to me a solution involves finding a strategy for both sides that will obtain at least a draw regardless of the opponents responses  (Weak solving a game).  

Here it is evident to me that your experiences w/ chess have given you great intuition that chess is a drawn game, which I admit seems likely.  

But since it has been proven that chess has a solution in the mathematical sense, only such a solution would satisfy my paradigm. I don't think that this necessarily needs to be a brute force search through all possible games, but it does have to be at least a description of a strategy for both sides along with a rationale why it cannot lose. 

You are right, however that technology may remain forever limited to touch the game. 

So why is it the case that there is not a hidden novelty in the Ruy Lopez that would not result in a forced draw?  Since it isn't the case top coorespondence chess players have checked every possible line, how can you filter out lines?  

Also, might it be the case that the top level correspondence chess players also just tend to play in a very conservative, risk averse way?

MichaelM Believe me correspondence players Want to win. When I played correspondence chess [back in the day] I tried very hard to win every single game. Human nature has not changed--they all want to win. I know some of the top correspondence players.  When they play other very top correspondence players they Want to win.  Just winning one game in a Super Strong tournament would be a life event for them and likely would win the tournament.

There is a simple reason they cannot win--it is correspondence chess is now at such a level that they Cannot win! They play so well [with all their helps] that no human or machine can beat them. And the very obvious reason is in reality chess is a draw.

The Ruy Lopez has been analyzed for many years but with all the tools a very top correspondence player has--the Ruy Lopez ends in a draw time after time after time.  

Also the Petroff Defense opening has been analyzed as a draw and the very top players avoid playing that opening as White. There is no hidden novelty in these two openings which would allow either side to win. One has to be very strong at chess to realize this. Just for example this continuation of the Ruy will result in a win for White'

And no this variation is probably not considered in the analysis--You just have to know enough about chess to realize that Black made a mistake and White should win.

And believe me the very top players know how to filter out lines.   So it is a combination of years of analysis and trying Every half way reasonable line, And the experience that nobody can force a win after thousands of games that the top players know the Ruy Lopez is a draw.

I will add in trillions of games played there hjs not been one game won where the other side has not made a mistake. [of course this last sentence is not enough evidence in  itself that chess is a draw--it is only one piece of evidence.  When Alpha Zero or Leela plays a super good move that move is always part of chess principles--and thus understandable by me and many other good players. In the same position of the recent Leela super good move I am sure the very top correspondence players would have found the same move in the same position.

I have played plenty of correspondence going back to postal cards

sure dont act like it.

Hell, I predicted the emergence of machine learning engines that would knock traditional engines off their perches years before A0/Leela came along, by playing games in their own sandbox, and determining valuations *without* human interference/bias.  Human beings accumulated knowledge of chess through thousands of years of history was eclipsed in hours.  That's the sum total/worth of human play in determining "best play", or solving chess. 

u already said that.

As for B-level chess, I will clearly have to defer to your knowledge in this arena.

which means ur B-level. lol !

not really sure why u feel so embarrassed in being a hard trying-no talent enthusiast.

If you say so.  I let others decide...based on your history here, I'm not sure you are coming across as the Wile E. Coyote genius you think you are .

How does does someone with postal chess experience act?  It seems like a pretty esoteric niche to have a recognizable set of behavior.  But you've sussed it out, good for you.  This should be very illuminating and insightful, go ahead...

I have not said anything recently about the emergence machine learning engines, but I have posted about this before, yes...that's kind of implied when I say that this is something I predicted.

Lola, let's take a step back and look at the logic here:

You wanted to call me a B level player, which seems fine, my best ratings here are not far above that, and so OTB I very well might be.  However, yours are dead set in the middle of B-land.  Ergo, you are probably more familiar with play in the 1600-1800 range than I, and regardless, have no room for casting stones.  I don't laugh at your little threads about castling and en passant and call you out for being a class B player that doesn't understand the whys and wherefores of chess.  

Being embarrassed:  you're projecting, sweetie.  I know it surprises and shocks you when someone on the forums doesn't give you extra latitude and goodwill just because of the persona you have cultivated here, but that stuff doesn't carry any weight with me.  We've butted heads before for the same reason.  I'm sorry to have had to block you, but there's no need to make stuff up.  If you'd care to point out *how* I am apparently embarrassed, that would be interesting...becuase my body of posts here paints the opposite picture:

- I have always claimed to be an 80/20 kind of chess player...I get 80% of the enjoyment for 20% of the work put in.  When my learning about an opening in a votechess game, for example, starts to shift from being interesting research and starts heading into boring drudgery territory, I stop.  So, not really "hard trying" at all.  If I had tried hard, there's a good chance I'd have had a title by now, but there's no value in a title for playing a game.  Chess is a game, played for leisure.  When a CM tries to pep talk me and mentor me into committing a bunch of time to reach their level, I have to let them off the hook kindly, without telling them that there's no real point to doing that.  

- I have remarked many times that chasing a career in chess is a bad idea (and it is).  Making chess one's life is unhealthy, myopic, and has a stunting effect in other areas of life.  Likewise, spending an inordinate amount of time to get from 1500-1800 to 2000+ is pointless unless you are planning to go the distance.  I have settled where I am because this is where my chess skill takes me without having to stop enjoying the time I spend on chess.  

Competition with others for its own sake vs. bettering yourself = unhealthy

Deriving self-worth from chess ratings = unhealthy

The real question is:  why try so hard to make something stick that you imagine will hurt me if you are not in fact hurt?

btickler  Your post # 4364  about what your noninterest in becoming a strong player [and your musing about other things] is not very relevant to the subject of this forum except for the fact that you do not want to learn more about chess is partially one of the reasons you make very incorrect statements about the highest form of chess.

If you don't know some things about chess--why do you post all these mistakes? If you don't know something why pretend you do know?

if u think about it if both sides play perfectly 100% accuracy then each pawn will trade for each other, each bishop will trade for each other, each knight will trade for each other. and whats left is a king and a king and it will be a draw by insignificant material

I'm not bullying Ponz. And to say so buys into the notion that he needs the help here.  His arguments need to stand up to scrutiny for the claims he is making (not posting opinions, making claims) and they decidedly do not.

It doesn't matter one iota what gender I am.  But if by saying "it reads like you're a woman" you are actually meaning "you seem to have more emotional intelligence than the average chess players posting here", then yes, I do.  It's not a high bar to clear by any means.

I have the friends list I do for various reasons.  Some are personal interactions (IM Pruess and public votechess games, for example), some are responses to congratulations or observations (Shankland, Nakamura, Pandolfini), etc.  Not really your business, nor can your conclusions really amount to much given the data available.  If I had 25 pages of female-avatared "friends" or something, you made be able to form a judgment.  As it is, well, I will point out that the most well-regarded forum member on the site has zero friends.  Personal choices are personal choices.  I don't really believe in the social media construct that "friends" represents.  Hoodwinking people into giving up information about themselves in the name of declaring friendship is about as heinous/cynical as it gets.

Ummm, I'm responding to your "going off on one" here.  I'm not the one making a flimsy and transparent pretext for making negative observations about a decidedly neutral profile...kind of reaching at this point?   You make two leaps too far...first the assumptions about the friends list itself and then the entirely dubious connection between having titled players on your friends list and being a troll...

It adds up if you were reading my post.  I don't use the "friends" list as a friends...more of a "well regarded chess players" list.  Again though, not really of import to you except that you ran out of legitimate ammo .

You've been here for 6 years...you ought to be able to come up with a short list of members that would be in the running for "most well-regarded".  In any case, I doubt they want to be a topic in this thread; the underlying point is that you cannot make logical leaps based on my friends list and that was just a good example of why.   

True. End of discussion (I hope).

God finally answered my prayer. I asked her whether chess was a draw. I asked day after day for three years. Finally I was given an answer.