troy You apparently do not understand the "either/or" logical fallacy.You were trying to give me 2 very particular choices, when, in fact, my choice would have been something you never mentioned [and apparently did not even consider ].
Also you do not seem to understand that a belief in something can correspond to a fact as soon as you believe that something.
One does not have to "wait" for a belief to also be a fact.
A scientist believed the earth revolves around the sun. When he believed this--it was also a fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
I covered that already. Obviously, if the final outcome of the perfect game is a draw, then it is a draw: it has always been a draw, it is a draw right now, and will always be a draw. Your belief in that outcome or lack of it has no influence on the outcome: it’s still a draw.
But we are not talking about the outcome per se, unrelated to anybody’s perception, but about the outcome from your perspective. There are two facts:
Let’s say you are looking around you. You looked as carefully as you could and saw absolutely nothing. However, you strongly believe in the existence of a tree. It doesn’t matter what it is, let’s just make it a tree. Now, one fact is that the tree exists, and it matters not whether you see it or not. It still exists.
The other fact is your perspective. Do you see it as a fact or do you believe in its existence? The fact that it exists—or in case it doesn’t exist, then the fact is that it doesn’t—is not at stake here. What is at stake is you presenting the tree as a fact that you can see. But remember the beginning premise? You looked and did not see any tree.
Despite its existence, the fact is that you did not see it. You only believed in it. You did not see it—one fact. Despite its existence—another fact. Don’t mix them up in order to justify the lack of seeing, which is the first fact.
Same with the outcome of a perfect game. It may be a draw or it may not. We are only concerned with your presentation as a fact that you can see, that you know it is so.
And I am saying you do not know that. You only strongly believe so. I already said this, it doesn’t matter if it is true or not, what matters is your dishonest presentation as an absolute fact, as is observable by you.
And you cannot observe that as a fact, you can only believe that the object of your belief
(incomplete by nature—this act of speculation/belief) is also true (complete by its very nature—the fact itself). But do not try to hide the fact that you are speculating by the existence of the fact itself. You are still speculating, despite your efforts to hide it.
Another quick thing here, in parenthesis, is your meaningless inclusion of other percentages of beliefs. I said weak belief, as in like 1% belief. And strong belief as in like 99% belief. And you correct me saying that there are more percentages possible. Really? Do you understand how mediocre is that observation? It is understood that any other belief is included there. All the percentages and all the comparative degrees. I only outlined the extremes, not eliminated everything in-between. What kinda brain thinks I did that?
Now, that was just the outcome of the perfect game. Next is the perfect move and the perfect game itself. There is no way to determine whether a move is perfect in the opening phase of a game, short of calculating all the variants.
For the third time now, I have explained that no one has any way of knowing whether the evaluation has changed significantly from one move to another, unless you go through all the sequences of moves.
You can entertain the speculation that 3. Bb5 does not alter the previous evaluation, but without calculating all the lines it is just a speculation (previous evaluation which is also a speculation, starting with the initial position, but that seems too complicated for some folks).
The problem is that you are not aware it’s a speculation.
Finally, as for that ‘either/or’ scenario, the point was that no matter what was the reason for that belief, strong or weak, logic or fantasy, it was still a belief. It still is. You just can’t see it.
ponz, the reason you correctly identified that some of my post was about practical play is that it is practical play that is the basis of the, modest advantage for white that we observe. Such a statistic can result from practical, slightly imperfect play, even in a game where one side has a winning strategy.
One cannot have a winning strategy in theoretical chess as it is a draw.
[a little joke]
However one can have a winning strategy in practical play. For example i once played The White side of the French Defense against a strong player and he got a draw.
Later i learned he was an expert with the French Defense. So the next time i played him--i opened with 1. c4 
I agree that the White advantage of the first move makes a big difference in practical play. [if that is what you are saying?]
In a post [a week or so ago?] you mentioned there was some kind of statistic that you observed which gave you some doubts that chess is a draw when neither side made an error? Am i correct in this? If so, would you care to give or explain the statistic?