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

and Ben ?....Tell me the real reason why you just wrote what you did ? And be honest.

At indian1960:

I can say "and always will be" with relative ease. It follows from this logical process:

1.) We will never be able to distinguish the single, perfect game (if there is such a thing - i.e., if there is a game in which each move is objectively better than all other options) without analyzing every single game that is possible to play.

Think of it: if you would tout one game as the perfect game, but you haven't analyzed what would have happened at move x if y had moved to z, you wouldn't know if the x-y-z combination was a better alternative.

2.) The number of possible positions and moves resulting from this is too great for a computer, either now or in 100 years from now, to calculate.

Think of it.

The shortest possible game is 0 moves. The longest possible game, according to google, is 5,949 (a guy on Chess.com says 5,870.5) moves. Since our hypothetical computer program has to analyze every game, and not just typical games (which are usually well under 100 moves) the average amount of moves per game will likely be well over 100 moves. To be moderate, though, we'll just stick to 100.

At each position during the game, I estimate there to be approximately 12 legal moves (this number is debatable: I just pulled it up, but it's probably around the right number.) Each one of these moves must be analyzed by our computer, and each branch followed through.

So our number of possible moves to be analyzed by the computer is going to be 12^100, or around 8.28 x 10^107. 

8.28 x 10^107.

It does not matter if your computer can calculate one thousand moves per second. Or one million moves per second. Or ten quadrillion moves per second.  This is a number with 107 zeros after it. Comprende? 

EDIT: And the real number would probably be closer to 12^500 or 12^750, remember, because of our moderate estimate of the average move #. If you do understand math, and you do understand computers, you will not argue that we will be computing 12^500 positions in 100 years because of our supercomputers. If you don't understand math, or you don't understand computers, please don't respond.

What is the perfect move for Black?

Lol. Yeah .

So I guess that significantly cuts down the number. And congratulations on being 10^57 times faster :D. 

But I don't get it. I'm going to look up this "32 piece endgame tablebase" because I have no idea what it is ;). 

Anyways, to indian1960, my point is basically the same, except that I change my argument to say "for a very long time" (thanks to Administrator2 for this precise term) instead of "never." 

Ben - I'm just having fun feeding your tiger !....see how easy it was to get you involved ?....and it's all kind of silly to predict the future of how computers will affect the outcome of chess (win or draw ?), wouldn't you say ? Now, I will ask #1830 again....tell us your motivation.

My internal database reads ERR: #1830 = Irrelevant. ;)

Based on the amount of time it took to create the various endgame tablebases (we are currently at 7-piece table bases), it will only be about 225 years before chess is solved (a 32-piece tablebase solves chess). 

I believe it will be solved long before then because we are working on solutions to the game from both directions, from the opening on and from the endgame backwards. The game may be solved within two generations!

The evidence clearly points to chess being a draw.

Yes, it is possible that there will emerge a line that will refute the preponderance of evidence (prior games, the evaluations of humans and engines, the wide draw margin of chess, and so on). My own confidence level is that we know chess is a draw with about 4 sigma certainty.

Its Not evidence. I mean if we were in a courtroom, the judge wouldnt rule in the favor of chess being a draw. I mean its Not that Kind of evidence

Interesting. What are the calculations on the 225-year bit?

Welcome aboard Ben !....you're all in now !....now, you had emotional motivation for entering. Why ? to pay back ponz, to show us how smart you are, your feeling frustrated, what was it ?

To be honest indian1960, threads get 93 pages long because of the irrelevant questions you bring up.

Well, I guess you won't tell us....but I have a pretty good idea........and thanks for bringing the antelope to dinner.....tiger !

Yep. But there are at least two others that are equally good.

Qg5 and Ke7 maybe? Ke7 might even be better. No human can ever think that is perfect play.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a drawn game. We play it briefly as children and stop playing it because our learning of the stratergies involed becomes concise.Nothing more to play for.
I think that chess is too complex for our present day minds to make it so comprehensive that we reach the level of "nothing left to play for".

Lol.

First off-ponz & ziryab...thanx for sharing (your experience playing Centaur Chess). +99.9! Kidding.

Secondly-it's great that latecomers bring much needed levity in an otherwise "serious" discussion.

Lastly-i think it's an better argument to question an 'automatic' move such as 3. d4 in an open sicilian, than proving why playing 3. Qh4 is an blatant anti-axiomtic in the Ruy.

8)

(ack. please excuse the obvious typos)

wow, the first comment was only five weeks ago...

Under the Scots legal system, the verdict might be "Not Proven" (as opposed to either Innocent or Guilty).

Now all we need is for Yekatrinas to leave and come back one more time, and order will be restored to the universe. 

(Just joking!)