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

its true 

He's right though, you still have not presented anything remotely conclusive in the way of evidence.  Same old, same old.  You talk and talk about the evidence you never actually list.  The one time you tried to make a list, it was 2-3 soft points that you repeated 10-15 different ways ...and not one was conclusive, or required any "higher" level of chess understanding, for that matter.  You list your tired old assertion that out of every chess game ever played, there are no decisive games without a mistake, yet, you cannot possibly make that claim, since it's entirely impossible for you to verify.  You've presented the centaur chess draw rates at the highest levels.  Also not conclusive, and since engines are still routinely surprising the best players (and other engines) in recent years, it's abundantly clear that nobody, human or engine, is near the ceiling of "best play" yet.  You've trotted out the notion that material is draw-friendly (i.e. one player can be up to 2 knights up in material and not be able to force mate).  This is actually the best argument you've put forth, even if a gazillion 1500 players have posited the same "evidence" ...but it's also laughably inconclusive, and any chess player of any rating can understand this point. 

So, you've really put forth nothing that disqualifies anybody from commenting on your mistaken conclusions.  The "you can't understand my proof" premise is just for shielding your own ego on this topic.

True

btikckler  One piece of evidence by itself does not prove that chess is a draw. However the accumulation  of many pieces of evidence does prove chess is a draw.

And you are telling a very big lie when you indicate I have not given evidence.  Over the years I have given a ton  of evidence that chess is a draw. You seem to keep repeating that lie.

I think one reason you tell that lie is that you don't even know what evidence I have presented over the years?

Probably another reason you keep telling that lie is you are not a strong chess player and you have very limited knowledge about chess and how to play strong chess? Thus you do not understand much of the evidence I have posted

Probably another reason you keep telling that lie is it makes you feel good?

Here is another lie you tell and this is a quote from you per #4452 my assertation" that out of every chess game ever played there are no decisive game without a mistake."  But you misstate  my claim--My claim is that out of trillions of games played there has never been one decisive game posted or given  where one side won without the other side making an error which would change the result of that game.  This is far different than what you say is my claim.

Yes I have presented centaur games draw rates at the highest levels. But that in itself is very good evidence but not enough by itself to prove chess is a draw. It is the accumulation of much evidence which proves chess is a draw,

You also claim that nobody human or engine is near  the ceiling of best play yet. But what you seem not to understand that the Combination  of the best chess engines and humans with also data bases and with also known drawing lines vs the Ruy Lopez and vs 1. d4 and also other helps--- the very best correspondence players are at or near that very high level.

Also you notice one piece of evidence and that it is sometimes material is draw friendly such as being up 2  knights and not being able to win . And you say it is not conclusive.  But what you fail to mention  is that this is only one piece of evidence and I never claimed that this one piece of evidence in  itself is conclusive that chess is a draw? This evidence along with all the other evidence I have presented is enough to prove chess is a draw. Also you claim this is the best argument and it is not the best argument I have presented. It is far from my best argument.

White will always win, even when given the best response from black.  If black wins, white made mistakes.  If it's a draw, white (and probably black too) didn't seize an opportunity.

???

exactly opti. if ones THAT interested in the learning process then thats why fingertip info wuz created. wiki, wacky, and wahooey...and places like that.

in ur corner.

A completely false assertion.  Which is why there are *no* top grandmasters insisting that chess is a forced draw ala Ponz.  They might feel that it is in their guts, but they are smart enough to know that they don't have enough information to make that claim.

If one is trying to accuse somebody of anecdotal evidence, it's not the best move to use completely anecdotal evidence as your own main point .

Gravity being anecdotal evidence is misleading/wrong, by the way.  It's not conclusively proven, but the evidence thus far is supported by a metric ton of mathematical models where gravity holds up.  If you had the same body of evidence for solving chess, this thread would not exist.  You know this, but choose to pretend there's some equivalency here.

Lol, this is a ridiculous argument.  If Ponz were stating an opinion and listed it as such, this thread would have been over 200 pages ago.  He's making a claim, and supporting it with a call to authority (his own, which is suspect), and claims require proof.  Period.  End stop.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/new-variant-transparency-ghost-chess

comment pls

You cannot produce even a page of reasoning that does not fall all over itself and repeat itself, each conclusion based on another unsupported conclusion you have made.  I've seen you try .  After a gazillion calls to back up your claim, you once posted a list of fuzzy, meandering bullet points and I (and others) refuted it then.  It's buried somewhere in this thread, or the much larger "Will computers ever solve chess?" thread.

You won't be able to reproduce it, because your reasoning *is* meandering around and you have nothing concrete written down, nor are you really capable of producing this list anymore.  It's sad, but that is the state of affairs.

All you can do is continue to spout how you know better and have posted a mountain of evidence that nobody can seem to find...

You sound like a certain somebody saying that they have a health care plan, which they will present in 2 weeks...then says the same thing for 4 years running.

I have found that is the best way also. If I say something, it's not credible. And if I cite some source, that source is REALLY not credible. Same for you. If you say something, it's taken with a grain of salt. Because you said it. And if you cite a source, it's naturally a very biased source that only crackpots and lemmings would ever take seriously.

But if we both find out for ourselves, using resources we find ourselves, we are much more likely to come to a truly informed conclusion. All too often people dig in with their pre-determined conclusion. That prevents acknowledging new information here, but at least it doesn't prevent them from finding out about it themselves. 

I've said from the beginning chess could be a draw. But it could be a forced win too. I think there isn't enough information yet to know for sure. Right now it's just educated guesses. But you are spot on about the circus some people go through with what they want to be their "evidence". 

btickler When you say there are no top grand masters insisting chess iks a draw you are being quite misleading. They may not bother to state publicly that chess is a draw-this is becauise it is so obvious to them,that chess is a draw and why state it so that a low rated player will just say they are wrong? When a strong chess master or a GM or a super GM analyzes games and openings--the games and openings are analyzed under the assumption that the opening polsition is a draw [except possibly 1. g4?] You really have no clue about how or what these strong players know?

btickler when you indicate or say nobody can find my  evidence that chess is a draw--you are simply  lying [again]

Many of your arguments are based on lies. Many of your arguments are based on your poor understanding of chess and what very strong players know about chess.

Enough already! The statement is true. Just because a lot of you do not like the inherent drawability factor in Chess does not make it any less so. So, let`s all just simply grow up and move on. My God, how many times do I have to say this!? Move on.

- Crackpots do need to pony up real sources.  But there aren't any, so it follows that they have to use marginal sources that get debunked.

- There's no conclusive proof that chess is a forced draw, and there isn't going to be in our lifetimes as technology stands.

Everything else being spouted is immaterial, in the end.  It doesn't change reality.  Ponz will never come forth with even his inconclusive list of evidence, because he knows deep down that it can't hold up.  Other people will still toss out their opinions, but they wont have anything, either, because there *is* nothing.

Certainly, this could all be resolved by Ponz withdrawing the claim that chess is proven to be a forced draw.   When these episodes recur ever few months, he is always beaten back to "well, I never said I can 100% prove that chess is forced draw, but I am 99.9% certain".  Which is where he should stay.  Every time he claims anew that chess is proven to be a forced draw to some new set of posters who haven't read the 200 pages of dreck here, people will point out that he's incorrect.  When people post that computers will solve chess in the next decade or two, others will point out they are full of crap.  Get used to it .  The overstep here belongs to Ponz...always has, always will.

I can't imagine a more fitting fate, honestly.

btickl.er  I have pointed out quite a few lies you have used in your arguments. I do not remember you trying  to go back and polnt out where I show specific lies you were using and you defend?  Does this mean you acknolwledge your lies?  If not why don't you respond when I point out specific lies that you use??

I don't respond to your assertions of people lying when they contradict you because they are ridiculous.  Nobody is intentionally lying here...not even you.  You're just deluded.