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

I think just for fun I'll assume chess is a forced win. Until proven otherwise. 

Lol.  Go ahead and pretend. 

Everyone can see right through "I was just testing you".  That's a thinly veiled playground kid's defense .

Your diagnosis via messageboard is laughable for posters reading this that are actually intelligent.  No different than the ridiculous threads that claim to diagnose Fischer.  Ask your wife (and I would say report her real answer, but you won't).  What you didn't like and don't have an (honest) response for is how I called out your switching between fighting with me and wanting me to "warm up" to your "high intelligence" and treat you like a peer.  It's a little needy, and misplaced in this venue.  Which makes it clear that you aren't getting a lot of "he's really smart" feedback offline, either.  Maybe you repel such feedback with your overbearing condescension?  Just a guess.  I'm not going to tell you have a personality disorder, though , which is the difference between us.  Your dysfunction is clear enough to anyone paying attention.  

Please stop. Enough is enough! The answer is: TRUE. Grow up everyone and act like adults. If you disagree, fine. If you agree, fine. Move on!

Only if you gloss over the actual proof I posted, as you have to facilitate your argument.  I didn't say anything about photos.  I find it funny that none of you seem aware that scientists purposefully left evidence that could be independently tested on the moon.  

I suppose the person who moves last forces the draw. But since chess is probably a forced win, the forced draw is only when the winning side makes a mistake. 

And yes, you probably would draw me at chess. The times that aren't draws would be wins by you. You are probably a lot better than the people I play. 

This has been over for a while...since I posted about the next inevitable cycle down the line.  The rest is just cleanup of Optimissed's mess, and isn't germane to this discussion.  

You're just repeating yourself now, Ponz, and not just repeating yourself from recent posts...this is the same stuff you told all the other posters that pointed out the flaws in your arguments back around pages 25, 50, 75,100, 125, 150, etc.  Stow it until the next time you overstep your claim.

2/5/2015:

"I am using "proof" as 99.999% likelihood in that post, not 100% likelihood.

"proof" can have two meanings. 100% proven or proven to someone's satisfication."

You posit an alternate definition of "proof" that is actually the definition of "opinion".  If something has been proven to your satisfaction, then that is your opinion, not another form of proof.  This has always been your problem since the beginning.

Or, just block me...I mean that's why you originally split this thread out from the "Will computers ever solve chess?" thread anyway, to have more control over a discussion you weren't having a lot of impact in.  You originally blocked TheGrobe (who's been gone for a looong time now) for making largely the same arguments I am making, for example.

btickler  There were a good reosons why I did not make a forum on "Will computers ever solve chess?" If you use your utok you might think of several reasons?  Or you might not...Apparently with your prejudices you cannot fathom why someone might decide on a subject for a forum.

You are not even close to the truth of why I did not start a forum you mentioned?

"proof" is evidence or argument to establish or to help to establish a fact or a statement.

Yes in that post from 2015 I used the word "proof" incorrectly. My sentence was worded incorrectly. 

I very rarely block anyone.

PATRIOT  Yes! it is possible hat White can force a win from the starting p;olsition when Black does not make a mistake. I woud estimate there is about 1 chance in a guadrillion

lol top level bots play stockfish vs alpphazero or other bots and sometimes one side wi ll win even thugh its top 3 moves becuz there are brilliant moves im chess that can gikve a side an advantage

My "utok"?

You admit that you were incorrect in 2015, but the post I just replied to strongly indicates that you still believe in your twofold proof definition .  Thus the bolded reference/tie-in with your 2015 quote.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.  You will continue to do what you do, I have no desire to try to convince you otherwise...you are a one-trick pony at this point.  I only post here to inform others of the problems in your "proof" and in your gigantic body of evidence that hides in the fog and never fully reveals itself.

Til next time.

wow! the maker of this thread had 62 years o f chess experience back in 2013.

btrickler  ha ha you went all tjhe way back to 2015 to find a mikstake I made in  a sentence!!

And I said I was wrong about the defintion---but that is not enough for you!  OK I will say YOU WON A GREAT VICTORY!!  Does this help your EGO???

btickler I do not remember blocking you or even the reason I might have blocked you? But certainly it was not because you make good arguments!  

Ponz is the one that said he very rarely blocks people (oops), and you've already known and commented on the fact that I have you blocked previously (and I already mentioned that I have blocked a lot more people since I started the Covid-19 discussion thread)...so...disingenuous or just forgetful?  Take your pick.  It's not because you outclass anybody , I just don't want to have to bother with your BS drive-bys on any of my threads, few as they may be.

I never said you blocked me, Ponz.  Geezus H. on a stick.  What is it with you people?  I'm getting worried about hitting 70 now (or 69 in Opti's case, though it seems like that has been the number for a few years now...).  Keep things straight.

I know this is hard to fathom, but I can cull all your comments without actually going through them page by page.  Technology is amazing!  It's still a mountain of crap, though, admittedly.

It's easy to gather, though, and doesn't take too much time.  Here's some illuminating (in terms of how you flip back and forth) quotes from you from the first 100 pages of this thread:

----

9/2/2013:
"I have given math proof that chess is a draw with best play from both sides."

Also 9/2/2013:
"To clear things up, obviously it's undetermined whether a perfect game is a win, loss, or draw. There is no mathematical proof of this."

"What I'm saying is, that existing win/loss/draw data and statistics are pointing towards a draw being the very likely outcome of a perfect game."

9/3/2013:

"There is also circumstantial proof using math. This is not 100% proof, but there is over 99% chance that chess is a draw.

I have given the circumstantial proofs and they are very compelling and noone has really argued against them.

And I know that my being more than 99% sure chess is a draw is not the same as it is 99% sure chess is a draw.

I declare chess is a draw with best play as I am very satisfied with the circumstantial evidence from which I came to the conclusion."

Also 9/3/2013:

"I know chess is a draw and I used math and other means as evidence."

"By the way I am saying chess has not been proved mathematically. I am also saying there is overwhelming evidence that chess is a draw.

"Most people who think the only way to prove chess is a draw 100% is to use a 32 piece tablebase.

I do not think we have to prove something 100% to have an opinion."

9/7/2013:

"My answer is that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.

Can I prove this 100%? The answer is "no"

Can, i give evidence of why I think chess is a draw. Yes, and I alreay have.

Could I be wrong that chess is a draw with best play by both sides?

Yes, I could be wrong."

Also 9/7/2013:

"Chess is a Draw with Perfect Play by both sides.

To answer a question you do not have to 100% prove you are correct."

9/8/2013:

"I am quite satisfied , more than 99.9% that chess is a draw. This comes from my knowledge of chess.

I do not care that this cannot be proven 100%.

There will be no "proof" as some want."

Also 9/8/2013:

"Checkers is a draw with perfect play. While this has been known for decades it has not been verified via computer."  [this was incorrect, obviously]

9/17/2013:

"There are some who say such things such as maybe in the future we will find that 1.e4 is a blunder and that 1. d4 wins by force if best moves are made.

Well, anything is possible but if you know something about chess that statement is near impossible as you can get and just muddys the waters."

9/21/2013:

"Here is my best piece of evidence. If the game is a win for White with no mistakes made there would probably by now be at least one game where White wins with no mistake by either side. However 100 billion games have been played and noone can point out even one game won be either Black or White without a mistake being made.

Another piece of evidence we can point out many games where it is clear that neither side made a mistake which would change the result and all those games end in a draw.

Another evidence Almost all the grandmasters and supergrandmasters say chess is a draw with best play by both sides. You have here hundreds of years of experience by the best chess players. Now evidence by majority can be discounted if the majority does not have knowledge and insight but in this case we are talking about the best players in the world.

None of these are 100% proofs but they all are evidence and they all point to chess is a draw when played without mistakes.

Here is another one Centaur Chess which is the best chess we have now There are more than 90% draws."

Also 9/21/2013:

"Of course the vast majority were not examined but of the games played by the very strong players there were tens of thousands and not one was won without a player making a mistake. If there was such a game it would draw the attention of all the strong players."

9/26/2013:

"I am giving my opinion on why I believe chess is a draw. Nobody has to agree with me and quite a few do not."

10/4/2013:

"Yes, the conclusion from all the evidence is that a draw appears to be supported so far."

10/5/2013:

"There is no opening where White wins more than 50% of the time."  [demonstrably false]

10/6/2013:

"To answer a question, for me personally I think there is better than a 99.9% chance that in "reality" chess is a draw. That is very close to being certain. Therefore I will actually say chess is a draw. However it is not proven in a math way such as using a 32 piece tablebase."

2/2/2015:

"Chess is a draw when neither side makes an error, regardless of their rating."

2/4/2015:

"The evidence is all circumstantial. Here is some of the evidence:

1. Virtually all of the top players agree chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. [they know a lot about chess]

2. Out of hundreds of millions of games played-nobody has come up with a game where one side won without the other side making an error.

3. If you look at the World Championship matches over the last 100 years--you will see more and more draws. [the world champions are becoming more skilled as time passes]

4. In the type of chess where humans and chess engines play humans and chess engines--the percentage of games drawn is increasing. They seem to have analyzed the Petroff Defense to a draw. Thus is you open 1. e4 your opponent, using a chess engine and analyis, should be able to draw.

5. As chess engines become stronger--we see more and more draws when they play each other.

6. checkers is a draw [I know this is only very slight evidence]"

2/5/2015:

"I am using "proof" as 99.999% likelihood in that post, not 100% likelihood.

"proof" can have two meanings. 100% proven or proven to someone's satisfication."

----

Misspelling "mistake" is classic Ponz...thanks for that laugh, I can use it after the annoyance this thread represents.

P.S. Killing two birds with one stone...Optimissed should feel free to read through these quotes for plenty of examples of Ponz making the claim he said Ponz never made.

oof you just destroyed him

I am 99.9% sure he will not see it that way ...and you know what that means.  Proof!

btickler show me one post of all those posts where you think I made an incorrect statement?