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

Then the whole game of chess would turn out to be a zugzwang.

I agree this is extremely unlikely to happen. But surprisingly enough, nobody has been able to prove such a result. In a lot of games, it can be proven that the second player cannot win (so the game is either a draw or a first player win), since the first player could "steal" the second player's winning strategy if he had one. In chess, such a result cannot be easily obtained.

I said zugzwang, you misquoted me

You weren't misquoted; that's what you wrote before correcting it. In any case, I thought zwichzwang was worth quoting, zugzwang much less so.

Donkey, what is your opinion about the topic? Have you already given any?

fburton  To answer your question:  What do I acieve by posting this thread and what do I want to get out of this thread?

1. I thought it would be an interesting thread

2. I did not realize that in some cases it would cause hard feelings.

Also did not realize I would be so personally attacked.

Also did not realize that some people would so much devalue the chess experience and knowledge gained after hundreds of years and expecially recently.

3. I had hoped to show that while we cannot math prove that chess is a draw--there is a lot of evidence pointing that way.

4. Had hoped for a discussion similar to the last page or two.

5. If I had to do it over knowing what I know now--probably would not have started the thread.

However, at this point, without the personal attacks, I think the discussion can be interesting. 

PS I know I made mistakes in math terminology and other terminolgy.

Wilhelm Steinitz stated this point. As a practical matter, when I am going through a game, I assume the loser erred.

As a theoretical matter, however, I am less certain. It may be that White holds a slight edge that can be turned into victory with perfect play by both sides in some lines. It is less likely, but not inconceivable, that Black holds a slight advantage.

Your question calls for speculation. Can I defer to answer until more is known?

Zirab   Sure you can defer the answer until more is known.

Merci. Danke. Gracias.

Walang anuman,  de nada, bu yong xie       

Agreed!

Actually, a tablebase is precisely that, a list of all possible moves and games, with an evaluation for each move. At the current rate, chess could be solved in ~225 years, when a 32 piece database would be created. (That's presuming storage issues would be solved by then.) Yes, a 32 piece database would indeed provide a mathematical proof. 

I don't have absolute proof, but I believe that chess is a draw. Already, correspondence chess has found numerous main line openings that lead to dead equality, and the number of such openings is growing.

So, from both ends, the endgame backwards, and the opening forwards, the conclusion that chess is a draw is being confirmed.

Chess Is A Draw With Perfect Play From Both Sides Houdini Has Proven This.

If Someone Says Houdini Does Not Make Perfect Moves Cant Be Used.

Sure I guess, But Come Back And Tell Me When You Beat Houdini That You Found A Way Houdini Could Not Find.

Chess Is A Draw As Black Or White If Both Sides Make The Best Possible Move.

White will always try win from the start.

Black will always try to equalize from the start.

White = Maybe Win.

Black = Maybe Draw.

Let’s say that there is only 1 way for white to force play into one of those positions, and it turns out to be a position that the best centaurs evaluate as a draw even though with perfect play it is a win for white. Could anything in chess be more rare than that?? But if that were the case, it would still mean that chess is a forced win for white. If the history of centaur games being draws proves anything, it’s that forced wins for white must be relatively rare.

Think of it like the lottery. If a million people buy lottery tickets and you check 100,000 of them and all 100,000 lost, would you say that you are 99% certain that nobody won the lottery? You would have evidence that winning the lottery is a rare event, but the evidence you have that NOBODY won the lottery is non-existant.

grayons     If it turns out there is one way to reach any position that is winning then chess is a win.  It does not matter if the particular position is hard to evalulate or not.

However the vast majority of those who have the best chess ability would say while anything is possible that senario is very highly unlikely.

The history of Centaur chess can 100% prove nothing. However it points to chess being a draw.  It does not point to chess being a win-not even rarely.  However if chess is a win and there is only one line to the win then while Centaur Chess does not indicate this--it does not refute it either.

If a million people by lottery tickets and I check 100,000 I would expect not to find a winner in the 100,000,  It is already known that winning the lottery is a rare event so my checking 100,000 people proves nothing.

You also should realize that a million people buying a lottery ticket is a pure chance event. In playing chess we have the knowledge and skills built up over 100's of years.

The Centaur Chess draws are only one of several indications. Here is another one--check the number of draws in world championship matches for the last 100 years.  As the chess players become stronger and as more knowledge increases in chess--you will see an obvious trend. 

Ponz where did u learn chinese.

U know guys Chess isnt boxing or horse racing. The truth is in chess our believes dont influence the likeness of what chess is. Also correspondence chess is not relevant .

Chess is too deep for the human mind to fully grasp and also centaurs are far from perfection.

We can see trends, but far from conclusive, they are actual meaningless and have no influence.

We arent closer to be able to amswer this question than people 100 years ago were

jaaas I disagree. I believe many perfect games have already been played despite psychological imperfections.  

It is easy for me to contemplate perfect games as I have seen many of them.

I am not sure what secondary issues you refer to and how they would affect chess playing of a strong player?

Remember, a "perfect game" is not one where there is only one perfect move in a position as in most positions there are several moves which, if played, will not change the eventual outcome of a game.

Also, please remember we are defining a "perfect game" as one where neither side makes and error which will change the eventual outcome of that game. 

Are you seeing ghosts now?

It has been weeks since I withdrew from this treadmill thread, and am most certainly not going to return, especially after apparently the chess.com Gestapo/NKVD/whatever "detained" George Jetson (who has been providing most valuable contributions and has not offended anyone in the slightest, quite to the contrary).

All I can hope for is that reasonable individuals will stay away from this "debate", so that the OP, his zborg friend (who has been celebrating George Jetson having received a scumbag treatment), the "spoiled-brat-attitude" damsel, and some random trolls can stew in their own sauce and happily foreverafter keep reassuring each other of the truthfulness of the OP dogmatic gospel.