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

jaaas  You are not trying to counter my arguments at all.  All you are doing is to try and make  personal attacks. So, hopefully you will take your own advice and stay away from this forum.

Uh. Wait. Yeah we have? We've already proven that Black can't win. We don't know if it's draw or win for White (I personally believe it's draw), but we know Black can't win against a perfect White

- trying to find source right now, I could very well be mistaken -

- uhhhhhh I can't find anything. So I'm guessing whoever told me that told me wrong -

is this post serious? i mean, are people out there that think black starts with a lost position? LOL. in that case GMs would score a little better with white than now xD... common sense, forget maths

I heard that 80% of GM games are drawn.

Justified  that would be GM's vs GMs of course.

In Centaur Chess which is even higher than just GM's I think the draw ratio  is near 90% at the highest levels.

For sure there is a strong trend towards more and more draws at the highest levels of chess.  For another example of this--look at the World Championship Matches for the last 100 years. As players get stronger and make fewer mistakes---more draws.

there is an advantage for white in the slav!

so!? You choose!!!!!

kwankaiee   have you ever been to Kankakee?  There are many opening positions which give white some advantage.

mc.S,dg,lfdmsMb,bz,dbf,smm,fbdz

I agree kwankee, I think you summed it up well with lfdmsMb. Case closed.

If you can find the source it would be very exciting news. I have never heard of such a proof though.

Anyway it seems unlikely that the initial position is a zugzwang.

I choose the Benoni.

Here is what I found on the matter :

http://chess-db.com/public/research/draw_rate.html

This only consider games from tournaments, so I think the high draw rates at the very top level are partly due to prearranged quick draws. Still, taking that phenomenon into account, we don't get higher than 55%.

I don't say that 55% is not considerable, but I suggest people trying to use figures as arguments provide sources so that we can check the numbers.

The same applies to centaur chess. I do not deny that there is a trend towards draws in centaur chess, but I really would appreciate a link to a serious study showing this phenomenon (because I strongly think the 90% draw rate is made up). It should not be my job to find such a source because it is not my argument.

We should all be careful when we use numbers, because they have a very precise meaning. If one does not know the number exactly, he should use a qualitative statement instead ("a lot of draws" for example).

Jaaas pretty much summed up my observations of this thread.

-redundancy follows redundacy...even those who try to refute, debunk the OP's assumptions, "evidence", lack of mathematical knowledge, heuristics, indicators, definitions inevitably get on his metamorphic treadmill. An Moebious strip, as it were.

-this conversation is forever bound to his own presumptive conclusions rather than the "interesting" topic it could be.

-presumably, we're beset with an challenge that he himself hadn't accepted and we are supposed to acknowledge as futile, just on his say so.

-he fails to realize that the future of chess, the importance of evolving theory, concepts where in the present time; opening lines extend to well over 25-30 moves deep, that it's more than likely future masters (with or without computer assist) will go 100-200 moves deeper. An lull in chess theory will always bring some kind of renaissance thereafter. We have history to prove that..

I don't think you have any idea of what you are talking about.

-we do have sufficiant documentation (if somewhat incomplete as future generations can/will add to or outright overturn)...

They're called MCO, NCO, GCO, INFORMATOR 64, ECO's. Where, essentially, the give some indication of the "best" move in a certain line, variation. If one deviates from known theory, the onus is on whoever is evaluating said move (again, with or without computer assist) as dubious, brilliant or a mistake.

???

Quoting me is one thing, Alx but making an backhanded remark without elaborating gives me the idea you are the one who doesn't think before he posts.

Or... the conclusion that chess is a draw appears to be being supported, so far. 

Btw, what happened to George Jetson? I thought his posts were helpful and insightful.

Interesting. The upward trend in draw percentage with Elo rating appears to be roughly linear. If extrapolated (dangerous, I know), there would be a 100% drawing rate at a smidgeon over Elo 4000.

Yes, the conclusion from all the evidence is that a draw appears to be supported so far. Very much appears....

What I have not seen is evidence that chess is a win for White [or Black]