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

quadriple If I say chess is a draw that is one thing. If I say I believe chess is a draw and have 99% confidence that is another thing. But do not quote me as saying I have  100% confidence chess is a draw. 

Your quote did not say I implied.  your quote said "you are asserting 100%" this is simply not true and if you keep misquoting me I will give up and block you. 

Incessant nitpicking over definitions and assumptions is a hallmark of Scientism.

Habitual assertions that Math and Logical Reasoning occupy a priviledged postion (an Archimedian point) outside the human conversation is another version of this myopia.

The debate between Theory and Practice (between Plato and Aristole) is as old as Western Civilization.

And it keeps playing out in this thread.  With many of us unconciously fixated on (only) one side of this ancient debate.

Sorry, but there ain't no Archimedian point(s) within the human conversation.

See you folks later.

Let's review that post shall we??

"Hopefully this thread will die out and in ten years there will be so many draws at top levels that my hypothesis will look better that it does now.

People will say : You know that ponz[RIP] might have been right ,after all,

as his predictions have come true"

Let's see what this implies.

It implies that 

a) the number of draws on top level will only keep increasing

b) People will say that (implying there is no possible scenario where they won't say that) ponz was right.

c) You will be dead in ten years (what a horrible assumption)

You see the problem with b??

You think you know you are right but your hypothesis right now is simply an educated guess.

To illustrate the problem with a, take the graph of y=x^2.

When you are in high negatives, the y value is high. as you approach 0, y approaches 0 too.
Then after it goes ahead of 0 it starts getting higher again.

Now if we assume  our closeness to perfect chess is the x axis and the number of games with one side winning as y you see what happens,

as we approach 0 from negative infinity,the number of draws increases.But if we take one step further and go away from 0 the number of draws starts decreasing again.

Now of course we can't plot such a graph because we don't know how close we are to perfect play so the graph is most probably something like y=ax^b where a is negligible and b is any variable.

That a is negligible/near one is a guess to help simplify the calculations because a doesn't play an important factor when it comes to graphing.

Since we are entirely clueless about the type of graph or our position on it , we can't make any educated guesses on the result of a perfect game.

quadriple that particular quote was partially in jest. Of course if my predictions come true--some will say I was right and some will say it was a lucky guess.

When you have a hypotheis that something will happen and it turns out in the future that something did happen it is only an indication the hypothesis is right.  Any people will say it was right and some will say it does not prove anything.  I would say it is another indication.

quadriple  When I say "people will say" that does not mean ALL people will say. 

You will never have a situation where ALL people will say the same thing about anything.

99% confidence? Show me your samples. How many? Billions? Trillions? Zillions? AAOF, None. Zip.

bean if someone says he has 99% confidence this does not mean he has "samples" of anything.  There are many reasons to have 99% confidence.

Truthfully I have no idea what you refer to samples of what?

Well, it's a good time for you to know what "samples" is. So what does your "99% confidence" mean?

HI Mr. Bean !!.....oh, sorry.....everyone please continue....

I know you do not consider this to be important, but I think it shows exactly why people get so mad at you in this thread.

In fact, you are almost constantly making the assumption that chess is a draw, without saying it explicitly. Then when someone says you are assuming chess is a draw, you just answer that they must be misquoting you because you never said such a thing. The thing is you never wrote the wolrds "I know chess is a draw", but you constantly assume it is true.

To be more precise, let us look at the example I just gave. Before we start I totally agree with your definition of a perfect game being a game where no move changes the outcome (and I am only going to use this one).

What you are saying is that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, resigning is a mistake for black. what this means, under your definition, is that the outcome of the game would have been better for black if he had not resigned and played perfectly the rest of the game. The immediate consequence of this fact is that this position is not a loss for black (i.e. a win for white).

On the other hand, you say that after these move, agreeing to a draw, with your definition, should be considered perfect play. What this means is that neither black or white is making a mistake by agreeing to a draw. If the position was a win for white (with perfect play), then white is making a mistake by agreeing to a draw, because he should win the game. The same applies to black. So basically when you say that the game after a draw was agreed is a perfect game, you are assuming that the position reached is a draw. If it was not a draw, making the draw agreement is a mistake for one of the players.

I think this is why people get so mad in this thread. You say that you are not certain that chess is a draw, and right after it you show an example assuming that chess is a draw. You might not even be aware that you are assuming chess is a draw all the time. Maybe you do not say it explicitly but you imply it very often.

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3 might win for white, but 1.e4,c5 2.Nf3,d6 3.d4,cxd4 4.Nxd4,Nf6 5.Nc3,a6 gives black much better drawing chances. 

Hi Indiana. I am fine and you?

Scorpion I agree with your statement.

For those who want to know what I mean that I am 99% sure. It means that I would be willing to be my life on it.

Being 99% sure is not the same as being 100% sure.  I am not 100% sure of anything.  

I do not say chess is a draw I say I think chess is a draw.  If I give an example of what I think is a perfect game that is an indication that chess is a draw. I am sorry that some cannot see the difference between giving evidence of something and being 100% sure.  I am sorry if people get mad because I give evidence,

not attempting to upset the flow of everyone's thoughts - just pretend I'm not here...(except for you Mr. Bean.......and yes, I'm fine also !)

Now, it's so much clearer. I thought 99% confidence was related to some statistics.

Well, the question is true or false. If it is an exam question, it is up to the grader. If my answer is true, and my grader feels above 50% that my answer is correct, then I am correct. The same applies if my answer is false.

If I may conclude, the question leads to ambiguities, and everyone has the correct answer. Hence the question is void.

Absolutely false. Why? Because of the disparity of playing strength. Even houdini vs houdini is not always a conclusive draw. You are stating an exemption rather than a rule. In relation to top tournaments which elite players participate I suspect some draws are made because they need to recharge for the next playing day, a perfectly human reason.

99% sure is not related to any statisiic.  The question can be answered only with an opinion as noone can prove what they think is absolutely true.

In reality chess is a draw or chess is not a draw. One of these has to be correct. So while there may be opinions on this it does not mean everyone is correct.  It means that those who have an answer which is what is really true are correct.  We do not know who these people are but can guess.

Also to form an opinion we can look at evidence. This is what I have done--the 99% is only an estimate as to how sure I am that I am right.

Because I am sure of something does not mean it is true. That  is one reason I offer evidence. 

Do not confuse me offering evidence that I am 100% sure.

It's just like how "Unclear", "With Compensation", "Slight Advantage for White", "Slight Advantage for Black", "Clear Advantage for White", and "Clear Advantage for Black", are all bogus statements.

As mentioned in the previous note, there are only 3 possibilities.  White is winning.  The position is drawn.  Black is winning.

So based on the original post, this would apply to the starting position.  Is the starting position "White to move and Win", A draw, or Reciprocal Zugzwang (i.e. Whoever is to move loses, and in this case, it's White).

That is correct 3 possibilities you could say and only the correct answer is correct.  Not all answers are equally good.  While we may not know the correct answer or disagree on the correct answer--there is only one correct answer.  

I am not 100% certain of anything. I am close to certain chess is a draw.

That is why I give evidence.  Some people think because I give evidence that means I am 100% certain.  But I am not 100% certain- there is no reason to get upset as I give evidence for something I am not 100% certain.

There is a difference between 100% certain and 99% certain and  to some this makes them upset. I cannot help this.

Some assume that the fact that I give evidence means I am 100% certain and that does not logically follow at all.