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

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

Facts:

a) I know I didn't ban him

b) You accused him of "more or less calling you a liar" on my thread which I didn't see at all.

c) He disagreed repeatedly with you.

d) By your own admission, you block people from posting on threads and whine to chess.com staff about controlling threads.

e) All his posts are gone for no apparent reason.

I'm really good at drawing inferences even if you deny them. 

I think you need a complete attitude readjustment on these threads starting with your aggressive attitude about this.  There were lots of posts and posters here who wanted to add valuable insights into a question that you think is 99% certain without anything very conclusive to point to.  I think you should find George and jaaas and others and ask them to forgive you and beg that they teach you some things that your obstinacy has prevented you from learning.  In the meantime, maybe there can be a stimulating discussion among the chess.com community about an interesting question of chess that is not dominated by aggressive rhetoric and obnoxious behavior. 

"You apparently have an ax to grind"

Yes.  I started a thread decrying something that happened to my own darn thread.  I completely support everyone's right to speak freely within very normal bounds that everyone on that thread respected (except maybe you with your "more or less accused me of being a liar"). 

Huebner once said: those who say they understand chess know nothing

chiaroscuro62 to respond

a. you know you did not ban him. This means I banned him?

b. Yes, he more or less called me a liar.  I gave the very specific reasons I asked for the one thread be put on hold and he was ignoring my reasons and giving a completely different reason [which was not true at all]

c. he disagreed repeatedly with you.  So what, lots of people disagree with me.  They are still disagreeing with me.

d. I have blocked a few people but not for disagreeing with me. And I have not whined to staff about controling threads.  I have 49 threads and not one of them is blocked and the one I asked to be temporarily blocked --I changed my mind and asked it be unblocked.

e.  lot his posts are gone for no apparent reason.  So this means I had his posts deleted?  Because YOU cannot think of a reason why this would happen?  Many of his posts were rather uncivil and maybe that is why they were deleted?  I actually don't know why they were deleted.

Any thinking and unbiased person should be able to tell your accusations that I may have had something to do with what happened to George Jetson are per your own mindset.

The last line in GONE WITH THE WIND applies here : "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."   And I think just about everyone on this thread here agrees with me, so let's put this interlude to bed and all leave as friends and still greet when we bump into other on the pavement. Does not have to be a cheerful greeting - a grumpy hi will be ok.

Nobby   yes, you are correct.  It is hard not to defend myself when accused but that is what I should have done.  Now on accusatory topic off limits.

I believe that there was an interesting conversation here that in large measure Ponz couldn't follow.  George and others tried to help ponz follow that discussion but Ponz didn't like that.  In particular, I find it stunning that Ponz argued for page after page about heuristic chess and then when all the posts about chess heuristics were gone ponz asks what heuristics means. 

The fact is that there was a discussion that kept trying to get started about the relationship between perfect chess and heuristic chess.  taht question was asked again and again with lots of defensive responses.  Turns out that ponz didn't know what heuristic chess was.  How deeply could someone who doesn't know what the word "heuristic" means have thought about how we can achieve perfect chess using heuristics? How much could he know about heuristic optimization or the likelihood of that working? 

If you don't know something about what is being discussed, you ask questions or keep quiet. 

The really scary thing is that what ponz knows about perfect chess, heuristic chess, computer chess, etc. is pretty apparent to me and anybody else reading these threads.  And ponz probably still thinks that his "99% sure chess is a draw" is an intelligent statement.

Because I asked what was meant by "heurestics" does not mean I did not know what it meant.  That word has more than one meaning and I wanted to know the particular meaning being used here. As it turns out I was correct.

Being absolutely sure of word meanings is necessary in these discussions If someone asks a question that does not mean he does not know what the word means. In this case I wanted to clear the meaning for everybody.

And yes, it is an intelligent statement for me to say I am 99% sure chess is a draw.  There are many who are sure chess is a draw.  

Can someone play a perfect game of chess [one with no errors which would change the outcome of the game] using heurestics?  The answer is "yes" and supergrandmasters do this sometimes. Also grandmastesr do this sometimes.  Even masters.

Re playing perfect chess - this is close to happening now in Centaur Chess.

FirebrandX is saying [if I understood him] that if someone wants to go for a draw [either White or Black] he can achieve this.  

Centaur Chess is the highest or I should say strongest form of chess we have now.  It is using the strongest chess engines with human guidance and this makes it stronger than chess engines alone [or heuristics alone]

So this is a combination of using heuristics along with the chess engine powers.  

What does it mean that in virtually any sound opening White's initial small advantage dissapates over time?  It is another indication that chess is a draw with best play.

Grandmasters see the type of evidence I have laid out and that is why almost all believe chess is a draw.

It is easy to say "that is not evidence"  but anything pointing to a conclusion can be "evidence."  I think when some say "that is not evidence" they really mean that "this is not sufficient evidence to 100% prove that chess is a draw."

Ponz there can be 400 Million different games after 5 moves, how can anything we know be an an indication?

How can anything we know be an indication?  An "indication" is something that points to a conclusion.  Just because there are so many chess moves does not mean that there are no indications.  It does mean that we cannot say things with 100% certainty.

Also, you can make a hypothesis and test it. If the hypothesis when tested turns out to be correct then that says something. If the hypothesis turns out not to be correct that also says something.

When you say there are 400 million different ways you can play the first 5 moves [I think this is what you mean] one can discount the vast majority of those moves as losing. For example this is one of those 400 million:

What I am saying is the vast majority of possible positions are so obviously not best play as not to be relevant to our discussion.

Ok