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

I am not 100% sure that the sky is blue, but I am 20% sure the sky is blue. Well, the sky may be blue, or it may not be blue. Regardless, what percentage I am sure or not sure. Either it is blue or not blue. What a troll!

Make up your mind, is it blue or not blue?! Well, it can be blue or not blue.

beab I have no idea what you are saying but it is not like anything I say.

I am consistent that I believe it is very likely chess is a draw. I do not vary from that.  

It's easy. Just replace any "Chess is Draw" words by "The Sky is blue". And you will get it. Abbot and Castello, deja vu.

like:

when i substitute the sky is blue it is nothing like i say at all. I suggest you use direct quotes.

If cannot understand me saying I am 99% sure of something, there is nothing I can do to help you. If you cannot understand me saying that I am not 100% certain of anything, again there is nothing I can do. If you do not understand I give evidence for my 99% sure again there is nothing I can do to help you understand.

What you don't get is we are not arguing what you are sure or not sure. And I care less about that.

What I care is Chess. The sky may be blue or not blue. But it is there everyday as long as I live. Someday I may not see the sky anymore. On that day, I don't care about the sky.

This should my last post to this thread. I really hope.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's been a while since we had a good sky Is/is not blue debate around these parts.

A common misconception.

I see so you are stating a theoretical question. You are asking a question without a definitive answer. However Chess is not a draw and anyone playing the game aims to win. If you assume perfect play from both sides it can happen occasionally among top GM's but between patzers like most of us it seldom happens. Who want's to play a game that is already a draw? It is doomed to stay at Kindergarten, just like tic-tac-toe. Now that is a clear draw. Chess is far more complicated than tic-tac-toe. Chess is still a mystery and it's good that it stays that way!

@sapientdust: thank you for the link to that wiki. I added it to my bookmarks.

BTW, Beardogjones and you agree on this matter. :-)

There is plenty of empirical evidence that chess is a draw. 

Many of those who are arguing about the infinite variety of chess seem to be confused by the concept of infinity. 

The number of positive whole numbers is infinite, but there is no possibility of any of those numbers being negative. 

Chess is close to infinite, but the evidence, which is abundant, points in a clear direction, that it is a draw. This evidence includes:

• No engine or grandmaster has ever found a way to force a win from move one. Not only that, but no engine or grandmaster has found a way to force the gain of a clear pawn from move one.
• Engines evaluate the opening advantage as less than .4 (many, much less than .4), and the evaluations tend to approach 0 in almost every opening.
• Every elite grandmaster who has expressed a view on the subject agrees that chess is a draw. The opinions of these authorities matter in this case. 

There is more evidence than this, but these three points have not been refuted in this forum.

Would you  mind elaborating on how we agree? Are you saying we agree on whether "absence of evidence" is "evidence of absence", or something else?

Perhaps you mean that we probably agree that they are equivalent in a probabilistic Bayesian sense, but we probably also agree that are fundamentally different in a strictly deductive-logic sense.

That lack of evidence is not a proof that the hypothesis is incorrect.

Beardogjones wrote:

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

which is also the message of the link you posted.

The message of the link is that finding no evidence for a hypothesis is actually evidence against that hypothesis, or "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" (although of course not a proof, which is the distinction I was getting at by thinking of deductively rather than probabilistically).

Tsss, I have read it wrong. Sometimes I read what I want to read instead of reading what has to be read. You disagree with beardogjones.

Must have read it wrong, because I disagree with that statement when it is formulated in such a general way. I only have to point to the Higgs boson to show you what I mean.

Now even more thanks for the link. I need it. :-)

+10, Anything that can be said, can be said clearly.  Thank you @SymslovFan for the clear thinking above.

Conversely, we could -- 

Try programming Houdini (or use two super strong Centaurs) to seek a draw or force a win (from both sides of the board), and let them work on this problem indefinitely at CC time controls.

And that's as close as we will get to a reasonable test of the proposition advanced by this thread.

Nevertheless, many contributers to this thread insist that -- no reasonable test will ever exist, until we have a 32 piece tablebase and the game is compeletely solved. Whatever.

ok i just cant take it anymore and have to come back.

saying chess is a draw because chessplayer think it is. Is like saying donuts are healthy because all 100 year olds say they ate em.

That is has not been found is also no evidence. it is absolutly no evidence, its even less of an evidence.

that are just speculative conclusions but no evidence.

We will *now* call it a mistake to go down that line thanks to the moves played by the winning side in that game.  But if chess were winning for white we would still think that way.     It is really just revisionist history.  

But that said yes, it seems chess is a draw with best play.  It is unlikely that it is a forced win for white.  It also seems even less likely that white is in zugzwang from move 1 and it is a forced win for black.   

I am happy to announce I am his 3rd profile reviewer ! Welcome to our own little world George !.......now everyone - continue ?....

This thread contains LOTS OF EVIDENCE that math jocks play chess.  

Thanks for the posts, @George_Jet.