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

Not sure I understand your point.

In any case in perfect chess there are no "advantages" and no "adding up." Moves win, lose, or draw.

Passed pawns, open files, space, this is all artificial framework we use to help our limited ability. Proof that it's artificial is found in each counter-example... which are so prevalent I can hardly imagine a whole (high level) game that follows these rules on every move. Watson's book comes to mind.

And I know you're good enough to know of examples where each advantage you listed can be counted as a disadvantage:  space, development, passed pawn, an outposted knight.

Yeah there are counter examples, but that just means the concepts are nuanced. It doesn't mean they have no basis. One way to look at the french advance is that white has played 1 e4 e5 2 d4 d5 3 e5 -- that's the mechanical way of looking at it, and is correct. It's also correct that white has created a space advantage. Neither of these truths are mutually exclusive.

Look at any sort of random mating attack; I'll know that it will always contain certain key things. Either it will be a mate in 1 missed, or else it will be a bunch of pieces coordinating with each other. Sure that concept is not exact, but that doesn't mean it refers to literally nothing. Again the fact that every "coordinated attack" involves a specific sequence of moves does not mean coordination doesn't exist (although I would agree a computer that has calculated the whole game wouldn't have motivation to know of this concept). In fact, many times when pieces are coordinated there is more than one way to finish an attack, because many variations may share a similar theme.

It's still the case that if you are committed to saying that all of those advantages I said are of no value, you are saying they don't affect the result. That means any positions where the only differences are in one side having a passed pawn, better king, better knight, more space, etc, those differences can't lead to a forced win. Yet we see that these positions do often lead to a forced win.

When Chess is simplified to just lone kings and pawns. Yes it is a draw.

When complexed it is the same.

This. +1

An example that may better show what I'm talking about: I think for example a computer can play a great positional game, without trying to play a positional game. That is, it might make moves that positionally make sense, even if it came to that move more mechanically. Maybe the computer played Nb5 not to get a strong knight, but because it saw a forced mate in 24. That doesn't make a knight on b5 less useful :) It just means the computer ignored that detail. Sure it's up to everyone what details they care about and which ones they don't, but they're all there regardless. The computer still got a beautiful knight and used that to win, just not to its knowledge :)

First of all: as I have stated here many times before, I think that chess is basically a draw. I meant with the ample evidence that chess is not a draw that there are very many games won or lost. As long as it can not be proven that chess is a draw nor that is won by white or won by black, can you only look at game results based on openings.

Those openings are called good in which white has a bigger winning percentage. That are the same openings of which the excellent chess players will say they are sound. There is definitely a logic in it. As long as it can not be proven that those openings will appear to be a draw, are there many many games in which white comes out of the opening with an advantage and bigger chance to win.

It is not a decisive evidence, but it is ample evidence.

All games which are lost are lost because one side or another makes a mistake. And there is ample evidence of this. So, the fact that many players lose games means almost nothing as they do not have the skill levels to play without making a mistake.

Chess cannot "be proven" to be a draw via table bases as we will never be able to develop a 32 piece data base. So that kind of "proof" will never happen.

However the fact that out of tens of billions of games, not one game ever lead to a forced win is pretty darn good circumstancial evidence that chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake.

Another good evidence is that virtually all the very best players declare chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake.

Another good evidence is that at the highest levels of Centaur chess--there is a high percentage of draws.

Another good piece of evidence is to look at the World Championship Matches for the last 100 years. As the players become better you will and do see more and more draws. 

So, while noone can "prove 100%" chess is a draw--if you add up all the evidence one might say that there is better than a 99.9% chance that chess is a draw. [I would say better than a 99.99% chance that chess is a draw]

Im sure, as some have mentioned, "perfect play to win" could be defined better by the OP or like minded supporters if they would somehow widen the net...

Why aren't Tal's brilliancies, Kasparov's, Alekhine's, Spielman's etc tactical or mind-blowing solutions considered as, 'perfect play'?

There is no perfect. There just is.

It could be argued (of course) that their opponents erred? Heh. I wonder then, how in the many normal positions in some of the games (symmetrical or whatever) the winning shot was, ahem, not unlike "a bolt out of the blue?"

8/

And are We, You, or the OP the Ultimate arbitrators of what perfect play is, Nek?

Cool.

I think that there are different levels of 'mistake' in chess.

colinsaul wrote:

I think that there are different levels of 'mistake' in chess.

There are many types. They are excellent !!, interesting !?, questionable ?!, and dubious ??.

good !, bad ?

Playing "perfect chess" can have different meanings.

However chess is a draw when both sides play without error.

By "error" we mean a mistake which would change the outcome of the game if the other side followed up without error.