Not sure what history of mathematics you have been reading. Not sure why food choices matter to this discussion, except perhaps for misdirection.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too strongly.
You're an entertaining two-day-wonder of a sock puppet.
The field is yours, @George_Jet. 
Because someone wants to discount the fact that noone has ever shown a game won without a mistake by his opponent. It does not matter that this is discounted by someone--it is still a very good piece of evidence.
Also it is a fact that there are more and more draws at the highest levels and this is also evidence that points to something. Some are so buried in saying this is not evidence that they deny the truth that there are more and more draws at the highest levels. Some even fall from grace by giving anedotnal evidence on this.
The evidence is there staring people in the face but some wish to ignore this evidence.
george_jetson5 there is more to my argument than you related as not only do I say that nobody can show a game where somebody won and there were more errors. I also have shown a game where there were no errors [by error I mean a move which would change the outcome of the game] and the game was drawn and of course I could show more games.
Now you are really burying your head in the sand [so to speak] when you say I have shown no evidence that over time the games of the best chess players are tending towards more and more draws.
Here is one of the evidences I gave which you apparently just ignore?
or maybe you missed this evidence. Look at the world championship matches for the last 100 years. You will see that over time there are more and more draws in these championship matches.
Here is another evidence look at Centaur Chess [which is the very best chess we have] There is also more and more draws in that venue.
It is easy to say I have no evidence if you just ignore the evidence I give.
As I said the evidence is there staring someone in the face but you must have an open mind to look at the evidence raather than saying it is not there.
This topic dosen't matter since everyone will make some sort of mistake in the game
ajian The very best players have played many games where they have not made a mistake which would change the outcome of the game.
This is many thousands of games.
By the way while there never has been found a perfect game [one without errors] where somebody won --there are thousands of games where nobody made an error which were drawn.
Regarding the fairly rare Qvs Q and P end games [we are not talking about all such Q vs Q and P endgames.] These have been solved by humans using a 6 or 7 piece tablebase. Humans solved those end games.
But it is quite a stretch to say because humans cannot solve a rare and particular type of endgame this means their evaluations are suspect.
That end game and the samples give are less than one tenth of one percent of all positions. Not only that but they were and are solved by humans.
george jetson I noticed you completely skipped my evidence that chess is more and more tending towards a draw by the top players and you completely skipped the 100 years of world championship matches.
Also, despite what you say, I already knew that chess is immensly rich and offers boundless opportunities for creativity. Only thing I disagree with is that you think humans cannot see the opportunities for creativity. I have won very strong chess tournaments by using my creativity.
Re table bases. Who do you think invented the table bases? It was humans. So humans have invented one more tool to help them evaluate positions. [these positions are very rare and if you knew more about chess you would know this].
Computer improvements of heuristics. Who do you think invented these chess engines. Again it was humans. This is one more tool humans have to evaluate positions. Houdini is a person with the last name "Houdine".
Tablebases and chess computers are something we can use to evaluate positons and we use them that way.
Chess engines improve our heuristics. They are the invention of men and also chess players. A strong human with a strong chess engine can evaluate postions very well. You act like humans cannot use the chess engines they invented.
Let us say you are correct and 6 and 7 piece tablebases just appeared and they could solves some chess positions which humans cannot solve--so what? what would be your point if that was true? [it is not true as humans invented the tablebaes]
Your statement that "nobody knows which first moves might constitute errors" You are very wrong about this. I know which first moves do not constitute erros. Also any grand master can tell you that these first moves are not errors 1. e4 1. c4 1. d4 1. g3 1. Nf3 . Because you do not know something does not mean nobody knows that something.
I think you are missing the point here. As I said earlier the phenomenon of best play from both sides seldom happens hence it is more of an exemption rather than a rule. You also mentioned something about 10 billion games that are won because one side made a mistake/ blunder, haven't it occurred to you that that was the "best play" from both sides even if it includes errors or mistakes? We are all humans here and errors or mistake happens all the time, it is part and parcel of our being. However it also happens that two players can play a game that are played flawlessly and ends in a draw once in a while. The games between top players specifically those belonging to the 2700 club are more inclined towards this scenario as compared to amateur games. Anyway people will always find ways to improve on the current technology in order to gain an advantage and get the win. Engines evolve and even get better for the same purpose and that is to win. Yeah draws happen with perfect play but you can count on people to find a way to win! That is something that you can expect from every competitive individual. That is something that you can expect from every chess player.
WalangAlam I agree that chess theoretically being a draw [or a win for White] has nothing to do with the average player's enjoyment of the game.
I also agree that one should try hard to do the best he can.
I did not say ten billion games are won because someone makes an error as obviosly some of those games were drawn.
[it was 100 billion].
Most people know that if a game is won, someone had to make an error.
Sometimes it is the last error which decides the game.
I am not missing your point, I know chess is played for fun by almost all players.
Well there is something missing from your assumption of "best play from both sides" since chess is played by players of varying degrees of strength and or ratings. Take for example the best play of 2400 player vs the best play of a 2600 player; there is a significant chance of the 2600 player winning than having a draw; the Odds of winning increases with every increase of rating disparity.
So I would have to assume that what you meant was "best play from both sides of the same playing strength and or rating". Well that would make sense but it cannot be used as an argument to conclude that Chess is a draw. Please don't say anything about centaur chess since the majority of people playing OTB in schools, clubs and tournaments aren't computer assisted. As I said you are stating an exception rather than a rule. Even if all games of the Elite players will end in draws that still cannot be used to conclude that Chess is a draw for the simple fact that Elite players are the exemption and everyone else are not.
WalangAlam When I mention "best play" I mean play without errors.
You are referring to "best play" as the best efforts of individual chess players. So we are talking about two different things.
Because two players have the same rating or playing strength does not mean we can determine the result. We have all beat players far above and below us in playing stregth.
You are correct about practical play but it really does not address the theoretical question If chess is played perfectly [without errors] would the result be a draw? Very few players play a game perfectly without errors. In fact, usually the player who makes the last mistake loses.
You do not want me to say anything about the best players as they are the exception. But unfortuanately they are usually the ones who can come up with a perfect game.
We do not exclude two players from playing for the World Championship because they are the exemption and everyone else is not.
There is a place for all players in chess and we should not exclude because some are very strong players.
At least according to the standard mathematical definition of "perfect play", he is correct.
Just like there is no mathematical proof that the starting position is a draw, there is similarly no mathematical proof that the position after 1. e4 is a draw. Thus, there is no mathematical proof that 1. e4 is not a "blunder" for white.
Let's cut the crap and tell me how many draws there would be in the Anand-Carlsen World Championship Match? Are you ready to put your theory to the test?
I'll go with 8. But that is irrelevant to the discussion, they don't play perfect chess.
How do you know e4 isn't an error? Some very strong correspondence players say that they have a forced draw against e4, do either it's an error, or chess is infact a draw.
Scottrf I know that some very strong correspondence players maybe can force a draw vs 1. e4 However since I believe chess is a draw then because an opening move draws does not mean it is an error.
In fact, in my opinion, most opening first moves result in a draw with best play by both sides. In practical terms at a very high correspondence level with the aid of chess engines it might be best to avoid 1. e4 as these players have a better chance to win with say 1.d4 or 1. c4
i also know 1. e4 is not an error from my own experience.
Scottrf I know that some very strong correspondence players maybe can force a draw vs 1. e4 However since I believe chess is a draw then because an opening move draws does not mean it is an error.
That's why I said either it is an error or chess is a draw i.e. if chess is a draw it is not an error.
WalangAlam you cannot take any particular world championship match out of 100 years of such matchesto prove a point. But my guess is over one half the games will end up in a draw.
My theory has already been put to the test. Look at the world championship games for the last 100 years.
There is a big difference between 1 world championship match and all such matches played in the last 100 years.
The proven tendency at the highest levels to have more and more draws is just what my hypothesis says. It has already been found to be correct.
This does not 100% prove chess is a draw but it is very good evidence.
Can a stronger opponent at least hold a draw (or better) against a weaker opponent? The answer is assuredly yes.
And it doesn't really matter who's playing each side (man or machine, or Centaur).
It's in the nature of the game, and comes to us from 500 years of chess history and experience.
That's all the evidence we have to work with, to date. Please make a note of it.