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

So far, all I've read by George and Tronchen is that since there is no absolute proof one way or another, then the discussion is completely open and there is no way we can make intelligent statements about the direction the research has taken us so far. 

If you were to believe these two, there is an equal chance of discovering that Black wins by force as there is discovering that White wins by force. 

Let that sink in for a minute. They are trying to obscure this point with references to mathematical conjectures that have varying degrees of support by the specialists of the field. 

In chess, grandmasters are the specialists in the field. They are unanimous that chess is a theoretical draw. This is not the same as the Reimann hypothesis, where most specialists are non-committal and some disagree with the hypothesis. 

But note, even in the field of unproven mathematical hypotheses/conjectures, specialists do take sides and do state whether they believe such a theory is likely to be true. In the case of chess, the specialists who have expressed an opinion have stated that chess is a draw with perfect play. 

Again, George and Tronchon's perspective is so contrarian that their argument allows equal chances for Black to win from the starting position. I find such a position to be ridiculous.

The way I understand it is what I call the "math guys' look at the fact that there have only been 100 billion games played and maybe a million or so games played by the very top players--that all  their experience n and chess knowledge means nothing zero kaput because 100 billion or 1 million is a very small number compared to the number of possible games. I do not buy this, I think their experience and knowledge means a lot.

The earth is a very small place compared to the whole universe--very small. However there is a lot of "meaning" and "knowledge" which comes out of that place.

I also understand their argument is that chess players and especially chess engines have gotten very much better over time and they will get even better. But how does that address the question is chess a draw? I believe they think sometime in the future some chess engine and/or table base will find the magic way to the solution of the question.  They also seem to say that there may only be one path and many or most opening moves might be bad or can be beat?  If you know a lot about chess you will know this is not going to happen. No chess engine is going to say 1. e4 is a bad move because it leads to a loss game.

Now please correct me if I am wrong but I think their argument is chess in math undetermind and thus it is silly to speculate on if chess a draw in reality.  checkers was math undertermined for many years but yet the best players knew it was a draw. 

The math guys go on and on how grandmasters could not evaluate a rather obscure position or positions but so what?  What is the point?  I think they are trying to  downgrade the knowledge and abilities of grandmaster is why they bring up this rare situation.

Correst me if I am wrong on some of this?  I am trying to understand you "math guys"

Wrong. Jetson said he thought a draw was more likely and that he would be very surprised if it was a win for Black. Only a mathematically ignorant person could believe not having proof means all possibilities are equally plausible.

Grandmasters are specialists at playing chess. Experts in combinatorial game-theory would be the relevant experts to consult if you want to make an appeal to authority. Grandmasters are no more the experts when it comes to game theory and mathematical proofs (which is what we are talking about here when we discuss it being SOLVED [edit: or playing a "perfect game" or a "game without errors"]) than Nascar drivers (rather than scientists and engineers) would be the experts in considering the aerodynamic tradeoffs of alternate racecar designs.

But we are not talking about chess being solved. As we know there are so many possible chess games that chess will never be "solved"

We are talking about if, in fact, chess is a draw, when played with no errors. Chess does not have to be "solved' to answer that question.

We are not going to wait until long after the sun explodes to "solve" chess.

However, from out knowledge of chess and from all the evidence pointing one way--Chess is a draw when both sides play without error. 

There is a difference between chess being solved and what is factually true about chess.  And, like it or not, chess is a draw when played without error.

It does not matter that to some it is undetermined if chess is a draw that is their problem. For sure if they had more of an understanding of chess, they would know chess is a draw. They also would not make silly statement such as maybe 1. e4 is a mistake which loses.  Or maybe there is only one way or series of moves to show chess is whatever it is.

It is silly to say that grandmasters, with the help of chess engines cannot evaluate positions very well because a very few positions have been found which can be evaluated but with the help of a table base.

It is silly to say that I do not know what I am talking about because I was not a math major.

It is also disengenous to misquote me when arguing against something I said.

Well I'm glad you cleared that up! Chess is far from solved. Yes there is ample enough evidence to say that with perfect play Chess is a draw. Looking at the Grand Prix games, I think one of the reasons is repetition of moves.

Ok.

It is becoming increasingly hard to argue against you because you don't even listen to our arguments and every once in a while you make this kind of post to point out we just argue the way we do because we are basically stupid.

It is up to you to think that. What I conclude from that is that we will never have a constructive discussion. You are just going to let us write pages of what we think and then wipe it all with a "anybody who thinks that is silly".

As I said many times, you are free to think what you want. It also happens that you are free not to listen to the others. In that case however, I begin to wonder why you've opened a thread called "true or false, (...)" if you are going to call stupid anyone that argue for something else than true ...

I did not call anyone "stupid" though I have been called "stupid" a few times.

I also did not call anyone "silly"  I said "It is silly to say that I do not know what I am talking about because I was not a math major"

Also the other "silly" did not say any person was "silly"  It said a concept was silly.  

I have been told that I never attended college, that I am stupid, and that a grade school child could beat me in a math desertion. 

And because I say a couple of ideas are silly that is not the same as what happened to me.

I do have a question:  A lot of people are talking about "heuristics" without defining "heuristics"  That word can have several meanings.

Please define it as used here.

I am glad this forum reopened. Hopefully a definition of "heuristics"

Thank you for getting the thread reopened.

You are welcome.  Now please a definition of "heuristics" the way it is being used here.

I also had some other questions which never got answered?

Wikipedia has a nice summary of what is meant by heuristics in this context:

Heuristic (/hjʉˈrɪstɨk/; Greek: "Εὑρίσκω", "find" or "discover") refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that give a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal. Where the exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution via mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, stereotyping, or common sense.

In more precise terms, heuristics are strategies using readily accessible, though loosely applicable, information to control problem solving in human beings and machines.

sapientdust    thanks much.  

I completely agree with Tronchenblais here.  George, Tronchen, jaaas all tried to bring up the complexities of this problem.  In return, they got

"If you were to believe these two, there is an equal chance of discovering that Black wins by force as there is discovering that White wins by force. "

and various levels of bans for trying to discuss the problem.  George's posts have disappeared.  This thread now includes little about tablebases or limitations of heuristic based chess.  Apparently, ponz was arguing for page after page about posts using the word "heuristic" and just now decided to ask what that word meant.  I would be very frustrated arguing with someone when they were using words I didn't understand as well.  I do not understand sitting in front of a computer and not understanding a vocabulary word unless the explanation of that word was very far above me.  Heuristic is a pretty easy word.

It seems that the only conclusion allowed on this thread is "Chess is a draw.  This is not a mathematical problem except that anybody who claims it is can only solve it using a 32 piece tablebase which is ludicrous."

This thread moved about 4 times toward an intelligent and interesting conversation and each time was chopped off. 

there is a game i think its 90% perfect and forfits the ruy lopez

krammnik vs adams sofia 2005

I don't know that game and would probably enjoy it but the whole point on this thread that is now essentially missing is that your opinion about perfect or ponz's opinion about perfect or Kramnik's opinion about perfect is not based on much that is solid.  Kramnik is an extraordinary chess player.  Ponz is a great chess player.  But chess might ultimately be incomprehensible to both of them.

Ponz seems to be completely unwilling to entertain that idea and has decimated the discussion because of that unwillingness. 

If you accept that White has greater winning chances than Black, why do you believe that? 

The evidence for white having greater winning chances than Black is precisely the same that shows that chess is most likely a draw! You can't have it both ways.

I don't think that was an important part of the conversation.  George, jaaas, Tronchen aren't contending win for white or draw or win for black but were aiming at a discussion about levels of uncertainty.  Maybe that was too hard for chess.com.  The fact is that ponz and others are all over the 99.[whatever]% chance of draw.  There are many interesting reasons not to believe that.  Those reasons seem to be offensive to ponz and others at chess.com.  That is deeply wrong to me.

Chiaroschuro,

George, Tronchon and others have been arguing that since there is no proof that chess is a draw, chess is just as likely to be a win for white. 

But if they argue that white has better winning chances than black, they need to demonstrate their evidence. They can't use prior games, computer evaluations, or any other such evidence without accepting that such evidence is indeed "evidence". George earlier said that such evidence wasn't "interesting".

"George, Tronchon and others have been arguing that since there is no proof that chess is a draw, chess is just as likely to be a win for white."

I read those same threads.  That is simply not true.  As pointed out above, George directly said that he thought chess was likely a draw.  I don't think any of them were arguing for a win for white.

I'm very sorry SmyslovFan but there was a different discussion going on here than what you think.  I didn't see anybody argue for a win for white or a win for black.  What I saw was a whole bunch of posts that were suggesting that there is considerable, elegant uncertainty. 

I almost don't care about that.  What I really care about is that all of that is now missing and silenced including on my thread.  I think that I know why and how that happened.  To my mind, the intellectual, Socratic posts on this thread were completely and repeatedly silenced.  I can't recreate those arguments as well as jaaas, George, Tronchen and others but it was completely clear to me which posts had more intellectual content. 

I think chess is a draw but I think that we can discuss it without rhetoric and threats and without people being silenced for disagreeing with ponz. 

chiaroscuro62  What you are not mentioning is that apparently the discussions by George Jetson have been deleted and on the other thread  and you were accusing me of doing this.  However the other thread where some or all of his comments were deleted WAS YOUR OWN THREAD. So I could not have deleted his posts.  Also you suggested that he is banned him from posting in my threads and this is simply not true.  

You apparently have an ax to grind and see nothing wrong with accusing me of something that I did not do and you repeat it here.

I repeat, I do not have Jetson  banned from my threads and he may post on any of my threads. Also, I do not know how and why some or all of his postings were deleted but I had nothing to do with that either. 

Actually people know pathetic little about chess, i just saw a thread were someone found a move 5 novelty .

The idea that any Human being could have the slightest clue is hilarious.

If u think how perfect capablancas games looked back then and now GMs easily find mistakes in opening, middlegame and endgames. Its crazy to believe this generation reached the pinnacle of chess.

Since 400 years every generation thought they had the ultimate knowledge.

Thinking we can have even the slightest clue is totally ridiciulous