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

johnsonsmithson  Your statement that I said "I've played  bajallion chess  games and seen mistakes in every one"

This is also one of your Strawman Arguments.  First you completely misquote me as saying something I never said at all. And then you use your misquote as a "Strawman" to knock down my argument.

It is easy to set up "strawmans" and then knock them down but it is a dishonest debate tactic.

"The truth is every game I have ever won"

Who cares?  You played flawed humans in a rich game in which they made mistakes.  It is very likely that you are also a flawed human who can only win if your opponent makes a mistake.  Your personal experience is completely irrelevant in determining the truth of some mathematical statement.

"I also do understand logic."

Almost surely not.

"This is a form of the "Strawman Argument""

To wit.  This is a frequent internet meme.  Idiots don't understand what a strawman is so they accuse others of making one. 

Ponz - You are a fine chessplayer but an uneducated person.  I don't know how that happened but maybe you had a war to win instead of going off to college or something.  Suggest that you leave questions of epistemology to people who have an education. 

Hey Ponz, No offense, but you really don't understand logic at all. 

You should just be glad you raised a nice forum and let the other guys keep on with the discussion. Which is rather futile, since there no 32 piece database.

Why start the same forum twice?

Definatelly not a "Strawman", Ponz is just not able do understand a perfectly good analogy.

I'm 99.99% sure the Riemann Hypothesis is true.

As long as you do not put "... hence, I will call it a theorem", you're safe.

chiaroscuro62 You are misquoting me.  By leaving out an essential part of my sentence in your quote--you misquote.  My quote was every game I have ever won, it required a mistake by my  opponent, before I could win." If you do not believe this, it is because you have a lack of chess knowledge in this area.

Of course. in those games I played  flawed humans [all humans are flawed] but the fact that I have won thousands of games from beginners to grandmasters and in each game I only won because my opponent made is mistake is significant.

Also, the fact that tens of billions of games have been played by millions of players and there is not one game where someone won without his opponent making a mistake is very significant.

Thus, it would be very unlikely for chess to be a win  when played perfectly when there is not  even  one game out of tens of billions where one side or the other won without his opponent making a mistake.

If anyone doubts this then find such a game and present it to us. 

[of course if there was such a game the grandmasters and supergrandmasters would be earnestly sudying it ]

Yes, I have studied logic.  My mathematical proof is partially stated above. Billions of games have been played and not one game was ever won without the opponent making a mistake.  

There are other mathematical indications and these include the math fact that the most proficient the players in chess tend to make draws when they play each other.  Right now Centaur players with the help of super chess engines rarely do anything but draw. At the highest levels of Centaur Chess the games are about 90% drawn. 

The various attacks that I have probably not attended college are also an attempt to cut down my credentials.

The idea that I think the Riemann hypothesis is true [or not true] is not a good anology as I DO have mathematical evidence of my own hypothesis and part of the reasons for my hypothesis are stated above.

Many players are assuming the only way to prove what they call they mathematical hypothesis "chess is a draw" is by using the 32 piece data base. [which does not exist yet]. And thus they assume the hypothesis is not proved.  However, as shown above they overlook other math ways and other math evidence re my hypothesis.

Just because we can't prove whether a game was perfect doesn't inherently make every game imperfect. There have been millions of games played in which white has won, and not every one of them has a proven error. Until otherwise proven, I'm going to say chess is a win for white, but that's just a guess.

conclude2 to back up your statement just give us one game out of the billions played where one side or the other won without his opponent making an error--just one game....

Also, there have been perfect games played already [where neither side made an error] and they have ended in a draw.  [these are usually very short games]

Alright then - 

By your logic this proves chess is a win for white, no? A perfect game ended with a white win.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1365399

I have given math proof that chess is a draw with best play from both sides.

But there is also non math very strong indications chess is NOT a win with perfect play by both sides.  Think about it.  If chess was a win with perfect play the grandmasters and supergrandmasters would be very interested.

Tens of millions of $ would be paid for a system where White wins even with no error by the opponent.

It would make chess history if there was some way of playing chess to win without your opponent making a mistake.  

There is no such chess history.  Super grandmasters have NOT found a way to win even when the opponent has not made a mistake.

But nor have grandmasters found a way to draw with black with certainty. Everything you said in your last post can be said for a draw with black also.

The game with 1. d4 will almost always end in a draw. It will only end with a win if Black resigns a drawn game or forfeits.  

Yes, you are right that someone can play perfectly and stil lose.  But only if they resign when they are not losing or some kind of forfeit. or withdrawal.

So, you got me on that one and I have to qualify my statement that there is not one game ever played where someone won [this does not count forfeits or resigning when you are not losing or withdrawals] where the opponent has not made a mistake. 

Actually against 1. e4  e5 2. Nf3 some non grandmasters have found a way to draw and as chess advances there will be more sequences like this until finally it is obvious to all that chess is a draw.

Then there has not ever been a game drawn with perfect play without a draw being offered in a winning position. And BTW, of all the openings on the chess.com database with more than 25 games played, d4 has the highest win % and nowhere near the highest draw %.

It is a really funny idea. The perfect game of chess is only one set of moves. Hence can you say that all of chess can be summarized with one set of moves. Defiating from the line is playing a sub optimal move.

To get another outcome then the result of the perfect game one will have to make a sub optimal move. If we assume that the perfect game of chess ends in a draw and you want to win the game. Then will you have to make a sub optimal move. That would imply that in order to win you must not play perfect chess:

You can only win a game of chess if you make mistakes. The perfect game is without errors. Your perfect game full of errors. :-)

no its a win 4 white because white starts out

Actually almost any supergrandmaster game which ends in a short draw is a perfect game. there are hundreds of these.

While I do believe that chess is a draw with perfect play (although it has not been proven yet), your arguments are not logical, ponz111.  Why should we trust your intuition?