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

Kramnik was a top 10 player and he didn't understand what he had done wrong after the game. There wasn't a single demonstrable mistake made in the game.

This is contrary to what two people posting here have said.

By 1994, Kramnik was already one of the strongest players ever to have played.

I was reading a chapter on Karpov in a book "The March of Chess Ideas." The author, Anthony Saidy, an international master, lost a game to Karpov. Even after having lost that game and publishing a book, the author didn't know what he had done wrong. He chalked it up to a blunder in a time scramble, but his position was total garbage and losing before that.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067691

It's been known for many decades that chess is depressing. The only way anyone can ever win a game is if his or her opponent blunders. Every GM knows this. They know the reason for losing is because they made a mistake. They may not know what that mistake was sometimes, but they know they made a mistake. 

The argument that chess isn't necessarily a draw may intrigue some people here, but just about every grandmaster accepts this to be true. Their authority on this does matter.

Until proven otherwise, the operating assumption of chess is that it's a draw with best play. That assumption still holds true after tens of millions of recorded games.

If we can getta computer to think for itself (AI) then we'll find out if chess is a draw at 10,000 elo.

And something else ?....chess isn't a draw right now at about 3000 elo, correct ?

Ghostess   Chess is a draw when neither side makes an error, regardless of their rating.

Geez. I'm not going to go into the "Chess is like Clockwork" thing because it's too abstract and loose in definition. More of an opinion than a actual fact. What is truly missing in this conversation, although it's been mentioned in passing or non-chalantly, is the Human element.

Indeed Humans evolve, computers/engines do not. They upgrade as engineers, programmers, and definitely Chess consultants grow: in thinking, tech what have you...

8/

ponz, I am sure that ratings are related to the likelihood of making an error. The lower the rating, the more likely a player will make an error. I suspect that the equations that make chess a draw take no account of the human factor.

false

I can see it now, an endgame tablebase with 32 men...feeling the starting position must be a draw, just setting up 6 men of equal value for both sides in symetrical starting positions yields draw ad-nauseam

Of course the higher the rating, the less chance to make an error. And the lower the rating, the more likely a player will make an error.

In the average game there are many errors.

All of this has little to do with a game where there are no errors.

The fact that a supergrandmaster did not perceive an error immediately after one of the games he lost, has nothing to do with a game where there are no errors.

And has been stated many times, we will never have a 32 men table base.

We can only go by the ton of evidence we have now--and it all indicates chess is a draw if neither side makes an error.

Again...hnh...assumptions. Circumstantial proof.

Over a 100 yrs ago, Capa declared Chess had become played out...

Ironically, 100 yrs later... Our own ponz111 has created a thread dedicated to this very premise. Hmm.

Some here have sided with the OP, obviously based on their own experiences or knowledge.

The easy answer would be to simply agree and acknowledge what many have "thought" ta be 'true'. Perfect game=draw.

But why is that? Chess is not absolute like mathematics or as simplistic as checkers/ connectfour/ othello

najdorf96   The evidence is overwhelming that chess is a draw if neither side makes a mistake.

It is not just that many "thought" this to be true.

The thing is, my friend, after many posts, discussions (both theoretical & empirical) nothing has been shown to substatiate said "evidence". According to your ambiguous definition as such or as how we (chessplaying or not) generally define as proof & evidence beyond an reasonable doubt.

Beware of people who speak in absolutes.

Absolutely.

s

leiph18 wrote:

TheGrobe wrote:

Beware of people who speak in absolutes.

Absolutely.

Amen.

The evidence is all circumstantial. Here is some of the evidence:

1. Virtually all of the top players agree chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. [they know a lot about chess]

2. Out of hundreds of millions of games played-nobody has come up with a game where one side won without the other side making an error.

3. If you look at the World Championship matches over the last 100 years--you will see more and more draws. [the world champions are becoming more skilled as time passes]

4. In the type of chess where humans and chess engines play humans and chess engines--the percentage of games drawn is increasing. They seem to have analyzed the Petroff Defense to a draw. Thus is you open 1. e4 your opponent, using a chess engine and analyis, should be able to draw.

5. As chess engines become stronger--we see more and more draws when they play each other.

6. checkers is a draw  [I know this is only very slight evidence]

Ponz, I think 99.99% of people agree with you that chess is probably a draw for all the reasons you mentioned.

Yet this topic is almost 2000 posts long. Weird huh

Thanks to all of the "mathematicians" that shared their opinions a while back ;)

I might re-read this thread some day. I can't say I really agree at all with the uber-sceptics (and I consider myself annoyingly sceptical so that's saying something ) that contributed, but still their points were interesting and worth taking into consideration. They probably could have expressed their views in a less arrogant manner, though.