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

The "chess is a draw with best play" theory is pretty well supported by indirect evidence. As we move to higher and higher rating categories... as we approach closer and closer to "best play"... the percentage of draws increases steadily. At the world championship level, it is common for EVERY game in the match to be drawn. In matches between top-level engines, draws account for more than 95% of the games. Not proof positive, of course, but good circumstancial evidence. Anyone familiar with calculus will recognize the approach to a drawn limit.

The theory that "a winning line exists for one player or the other" is supported by nothing whatever.

Given the preponderance of indirect evidence, the burden of proof lies with the "not a draw" faction. It is up to them to offer evidence, or at least a convincing rationale.

I agree with most of what you said because the limit theory stuff I already said myself several times earlier, but who has time to read all of this? The problem with limit theory is that sometimes you have a function that approaches the zero or infinite line but never gets there. Which is chess? I don't know, not enough data, need a full asymptotic analysis.

I agree. White wins more than black. 

At the highest correspondence level ALL games are drawn.

1. Although I now agree that chess is most likely a draw I do not think that the probability of a forced win is zero!

2. If Chess is indeed a forced win I think it as likely (or close to as likely) to be a win for Black!

   I don't like to post on this already long thread unless I have something new to offer. I gave a lot of thought to the question posed by this forum and am prepared to present a reasoned argument for both these statements which seem to contradict the opinions expressed by Ponz and his allies!

  I seem to recall Ponz stating at one time that he was 99.999% sure that chess is a draw with best play on both sides, that is he admitted a one in a hundred thousand chance that it is a forced win. Later he gave the figure as 99.9999%, one in a million. When I pointed out the order of magnitude difference between those numbers he did not think it was significant. Lately I gather he is implying that, although it can't be mathematically proven, experts consider it "known" that chess is a draw with best play.

    Well, lets consider what it would mean if chess were a forced win. As I am sure you all know the possible continuation of any game is like a tree with each branch representing a different move and each branch would have multiple branches of it's own for all the succeeding moves creating an astronomical number of possible games. Best play on both sides, as defined as moves that do not lead to a loss by either player, would considerably "prune" many of those branches. Now if chess is a forced win that would mean that the winner could always leave only losing branches for the opponent, but the probability in a full game that every branch out of millions and millions of choices are all going to be bad moves seems vanishingly small. So that is why I think chess most likely a draw.

   On the other hand there are still openings where in all the possible games you can not say for certain that at some point in the game there will be a forced win, perhaps by amazing sacrifices, or by restricting the opponents moves to where he can't defend. If you can always find a "branch" where you cannot say for certain it leads to a draw, where there is a chance that a line of play may have a forced win, then you have to say that it is not known chess is a draw with best play on both sides, there is still a possibility of a forced win. To pull a number out of my hat I'll just claim there is a one in 10 to the 20th power chance that chess is a forced win!

   Now as for my claim that Black is nearly as likely as White to have this forced win if there is one here is my thoughts. The general belief is that if there is such a win then is must be built on White's opening advantage, that it can be gradually improved on until a win is forced! Now nobody has been able to do that and I think it has been shown that as the game goes on that advantage becomes less significant. I will agree that most likely White's advantage is not enough for a forced win. I will now argue the if there is a forced win it is more likely combinations of moves arising out of all forced positions, that is to say all those that seemed reasonable and not producing obvious disadvantages, and it can very well be that White moving first may be the factor that makes him have to make a compromising move at some point, indeed I don't see how you can say, if you agree that the win does not come from a first move advantage, that Black is not close to equally having that one in 10 to the 20th power chance of the forced win!

   Note that in other games that have been solved, including if I recall correctly a simplified form of chess, the first move advantage does not always give the forced win. Also note that unlike the game "Go" where you can pass, or some versions of cylindrical chess with a "null" move, in chess (except in the case of stalemate) you are forced to make a move each turn even if it is to your disadvantage. So may it not come about that White's first move creates a losing position at some point in the game?

Sometimes that's true. And sometimes it's not. But chances are with best play chess is either a forced win for white, or a draw. Probably a forced win for white, based on the fact white wins more often than white. 

With the 50 move rule I agree, chess is probably a draw. But with longer and longer forced wins being found (sometimes 500 moves) in what were otherwise considered drawn endgames it's only a matter of time before it's found that getting into one of these endgames is forced from the first move. 

And who is to say there aren't millions of these endgames and thousands of moves deep forced wins? Just because we've found some that are 500 moves deep doesn't mean there are none that are 10,000 moves deep. 

As one who thinks it is extremely likely that chess is inherently drawn, I must  take exception to the proposition that it is incumbent for ONLY those who believe chess may have some forced winning line to furnish irrefutable proof of their proposition. The fact that most of the evidence we possess indicates the drawish nature of the game does not prove that it MUST be so. The history of science is replete with examples of long-held theories that worked to solve practical problems for generations only to have new discoveries show they were flawed to some degree.

     And of course the issue of perfect play is relevant--should better moves for one side in a "drawn" position be uncovered then the evaluation of that position must be changed.

Do you accept that chess has an inherent theoretical result and this result is one the three possible outcomes?

If not, note that you should as this is a theorem of the theory of finite deterministic games of perfect information.

The truth amounts to this: there is at least one best strategy for white and at least one best strategy for black and when these strategies are played against each other, they reach some fixed outcome.

+1 Yep, in any rational scientific debate the onus is not on one side or the other but on both sides to prove their case or disprove the other side's case, in this whole long thread I have seen no proof positive for either side's case, that "onus" statement is simply irrational and against the scientific method.

But what happens if instead of assuming chess is a draw, it's assumed it's a forced win? When I give my opinion it's from the viewpoint that it's an unproven fact that chess is a forced win. It may be proven someday, it may not. But I still accept it as fact. Lots of things are facts but haven't been proven yet, chess being a forced win is one of them.  I just don't see any problem in holding the opinion that it's possible that with perfect play chess is a draw. It may not be a fact, but there is no harm in holding that opinion. 

     Realize that someone who disagrees with what you say may understand exactly what you mean and still be unconvinced by your reasoning. Look at the original post and you will notice that the issue of perfect play is part of this discussion. Two patzers can commit mistake after mistake and the game will remain drawn, but this doesn't prove that chess is inherently drawn. You start with the assumption that chess is a draw, draw conclusions based on that assumption, and proclaim that this proves your point. Others may disagree; that doesn't mean they are twisting your words or fail to understand you.

You are probably a lot smarter (and more patient) than I am. 

If existing a game in the world (not only the chess) with not equal preconditions, it's not a game at all for me.

It would not be difficult to design a game where there was a forced win for the first player, but where the win required extreme precision to achieve.  For example, take any example of Nim where the first player starts in a winning position - the path to victory involves playing a single best move at every turn (There can be any number of legal moves).

In such a game, without already knowing the winning strategy players would fail to play it pretty much all the time. This could give entirely the wrong impression about the status of the game (for a large game of Nim, roughly 50% statistics would be achieved).

It is at least possible that chess is such a game.

Technical point - as there is no draw in Nim, one could not infer from the 50% results that the game was theoretically drawn. Rather, one would have to admit that it was unclear which of the two players had the winning strategy that must exist.

An interesting point is that it is possible for the value of the initial position to have some effect on the final statistics even when players play inaccurately. In such a situation, the initial position might be winning for white but due to inaccuracy, white might achieve 54% results (for example). Again, it is possible that this is the case for chess.

how is this topic still going on

I'm just still trying to wrap my mind around the idea of sorting stamps. 

I guess I have to appreciate learning something new every day. What you just described sounds like suicidal boredom. But, everyone is different and there are probably people who have a deep appreciation for things like that.  I totally disagree about it being like chess though. Tournament chess is probably boring or an obsession but normal chess isn't anything like what you described. 

When I play chess it's with friends, or family, and we usually don't even finish the game. We just play for a while, see what happens. It's a social game, where there is usually more talking than moving pieces. Shuffling stamps seems to me about as exciting as watching paint dry. But I'm sure people say the same thing about me because I play golf. 

It's still going on because of you. The 50MovesRule. 

With the 50 move rule chess is probably a draw. Without it, it's probably a win for white. 

     Just because great intellects have searched unsuccessfully for something for a long time certainly does not prove its non-existence. Some of the brightest minds of the past century have struggled to elucidate the unified field theory. It has yet to be discovered. Most physicists are of the opinion that it must exist, but no one (not even Einstein) has even been able to decide what questions need to be answered in order to understand it.

when all else fails use arithmetic. it explains EVERYTHING !