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

btickler You do seem to have a reading comprehension  problem. You do not seem to know the difference between "I am 99.9999% certain that chess is a draw"  and "I have 100% proven chess is a forced draw" I have never said I have 100% proven chess is a forced draw. "  I have said that the evidence is enough to prove chess is a draw. But for people like you who 1. do not understand chess very well.and 2 have told many lies in  these forums and 3. do not understand how correspondence chess works at the highest ,levels and 4. have a habit of disregarding evidence and 5. Do not understand much of the evidence because of your relatively low skill level. and 6 do not even know what evidence has been presented --- there is no way anyone could prove to you that chess is a draw!.

The answer is simple, Ponz.  When you say "chess is a forced draw, I have proof", you are claiming 100%.  So, stop saying it.  Simple.  All you have to say is:

"In my opinion, chess is forced draw"

or

"I'm 99.9% sure chess is a forced draw, and there is evidence to back up my opinion"

...and you would have no problems. 

and...there's no way you can prove to anyone, of any skill level, that chess is forced draw.  Because there isn't conclusive proof.  The evidence is not "enough".  You say I am disregarding evidence, but you still haven't presented any significant evidence, you just talk about a body of evidence that does not exist.

btickler you seem to have a poor command of the English language. Also you did not respond to my points made in #4511. So to help you I will give you an anology. 

I will say I am 99.99% certain that man walked on the moon. I will also say there is enough     evidence  to prove man walked on the moon. .But that does not mean I can 100% prove that man walked on the moon.

This is because there are people who deny that it can be proved man walked on the moon. They might say that the technology was not there and thus nobody can prove man walked on the moon. . They might say that it was all fake and that the filming that showed man walked on the moon was actually made in the desert which was set up to make it look like man walked on the moon. And then I might say we have the people who walked on the moon  affirming they walked on the moon. And then the walk on the moon

 deniers might say that all these people were paid to pretend they walked on the moon. And President Kennedy had promised men would walk on the moon but found the technology did not exist and so he made this elaborate hoax. And then they may say that there cannot be any real evidence that ,man walked on the moon.

So I could not say I can 100% prove thjat man walked on the moon as there will always be some people who will disregard all the evidence that man walked on the moon.There will always be people who have a poor knowledge of science and a poor knowledge of space science and a poor knowledge of math  and who disregard evidence and to them I cannot 100% prove man walked on the moon.

GMprop  Yes for people who think, the moon  landng was  fake--you cannot really prove to them that it was not fake.

Or, you could research where they installed the reflectors on the moon's surface, build your own frigging telescope by hand if you don't trust astronomers, aim it at the right spot, and determine for yourself.  That's assuming you will also not say the moon itself is fake.

Being ignorant is one thing, but many of you are willfully ignorant and woefully undereducated...it's just painful to watch the ineptitude all across this site...often coming from those who consider themselves of above average intelligence.  So, if the moon landing was fake, then why not a flat earth as well?  The moon landing *is* proven, Ponz, unlike your ramblings.

None of this is an argument in your favor.

Any chance of showing your working in arriving at that figure?

If the strongest chess entities in the this universe can only scratch the surface of the chess algorithmn than what kind of "evidence" shows that the chess is a draw? 

Aren't you the same schmuck that tried to tell me *I* was judging people just yesterday?  I guess I will take your hypocritical retreat to grammar nazi territory as capitulation.  Would you now care to tell us some anecdote from your life now where the word "capitulation" was pretentious, and also how you were brilliant and magnanimous, and your wife was beautiful and supported you in your endeavors, brilliant in her own right, but just below your intelligence (of course, it goes without saying), while you were being tested with a 190 IQ and sipping a mai-tai?

I find you to be far from classy.  What you are is pretentious (and prone to project about it) and pedantic.  Not far from insufferable (or is it insufferability?). 

Force-fit sounds less awkward that "force fitted" in that sentence...but maybe you can conjugate the verb "force-fit" for us, since it isn't actually a verb in the dictionary?  I'm surprised by your mistaken tactic here...why look like a dweeb for arguing the pluperfect of a verb that isn't even proper? 

Is it because you are losing and need to grasp for something?   Maybe you should just chill out a few days and come back when you are feeling less vindictive.

Is the 'debate' between @btickler and @Optimissed a draw with best play from both sides? 

Optimissed should be so lucky.  He alternates between wanting to win versus wanting me to admit he's smart and that we belong in the same strata, as buddies.  Can't say I ever see either happening ...

My post was accurate, and more importantly, not addressed your way.  Please, try to restrain yourself, hmm?  I know it gets your goat that you can't score any points, but just deal with it and move on with your life.

btickler again you failed to address several of my points.  And it was a really good anaology of how you refuise to consider evidence.  And you are willfully ignorant and do not respond to the points I make.  This causes you to do things such as to give completely wrong/ignorant ideas of how correspondence chess works at the highest levels.  Because you played correspondence chess at a low level in the past does not mean you understand how correspondence chess at a very high level works.? Over the weeks I have pointed out many of the incorrect statements you make apparently out of your willful ignorance.

You may say the moon landing is "proven" but it can never be "proven" to an Individual who is willfully ignorant and wants to discard evidence.

That's a ridiculous argument, and you know it.  "Proven" is an objective measure, usually highlighted by consensus, not a subjective measure of personal opinion.  The moon landing happened, chess is not proven to be a forced draw.  Objective reality.  And before you even bring it up...the fact that most GMs think chess is draw does not change the fact that most GMs also know that chess is not proven to be a forced draw, which is why they do not even attempt to make the claim you are making.

P.S. Seizing on "willfully ignorant" in my post and using it twice in yours is a sign of not being able to venture out after your own lines of thought anymore.  You're just grabbing for the closest thing.  This is something you might want to bring up with your doctor.  My father also has dementia, and he does this constantly.  Seriously, as much as I wish you'd stop this cycle of claiming chess is a forced draw, I don't actually wish you ill, literally or otherwise.

Indeed. It's been quite awhile ago since I first posted (7+, which also include the various iterations by Mr. ponz during the time on this very topic) my thoughts on this, heh. Oh my gosh, ponz is as stern, steady & rambunctious as ever~like an Oak! Gotta admire that. Yes, I have to admit that there were times he really made me think, to question myself~he almost had me a couple of times! But then again, this forum comes around (ugh) and obviously there is another decade of perspectives from gen Z either for or against. Heh. Bringing up things already said, reiterating certain points but from a different angle, or just plain "out there ". I always thought that ponz was always reaching for something, then later seeking validation. Now it seems, he is starting it all over again. Rekindling this Idea to a somewhat "new" audience, instead of taking some gains & quitting while he was somewhat ahead. I say this because, in those early years I was 100% against: I favored White (and only White to Play & Win), after 3 years I found myself at 75% (his Validation Years) and finally to right now as I'm writing this, to 51%. Heh. Yeah, he'd been gradually chipping away at my arguments; but now I will hold fast at this position because I think he got greedy and wasn't satisfied with his results the last go around.

Best play? 

I'm skeptical of people consistently claiming to be smart or "wiser", especially when those claims collide with the things they say.

najdorf  There has been a lot of new evidence since I started this forum years ago. Much of the new evidence has to do with correspondence chess at the very highest levels which maybe 95% of chess players are not aware of [the new evidence] and thus the new evidence needs some explaining.

Some more  new evidence has to do with some important strong openings have been exhaustedly analyzed to a draw. The Ruy Lopez  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3.Bb5 is a draw. The Petroff  1. e4  e5  2, Nf3  Nf6  is also analyzed to a draw.  The French Defense 1. e4  e6  is also a draw.  Even 1. d4  is a draw if Black plays thje best defense.

btickler "proven" often is not highlighted by consesus.  Using evidence is one way to prove something. But you constantly reject evidence. 

Objective reality is that chess is a draw.  And the very strong players know this.

The word "proven" has more than one meaning. 

The fact remains that nobody can prove to you that chess is a draw as 1. you reject evidence.

2, You have a very poor understanding of chess.  3. You do not seem to understand correspondence chess at the highest level at all, and have made untrue claims about that kind of chess  4. when I make specific points you usually avoid responding to my points.  5. when you make obvious mistakes and you are shown you made such mistakes --you do not admit you were wrong,

Actually my anology regarding the moon walk was spot on. There are people such as yourself who reject evidence.