With Best Play for both sides Chess is a Draw--So Why Do We Play?

Yes... but you would not know that without us proving that it did in the first place

A fact does not depend on someone knowing it. If there never had been humans on this planet it would still be a fact that the earth revolves around the sun.

Look at the definition of "fact" as posted here earlier.

Oh dear.

Your inference is based precisely on nothing other than your existing knowledge of the Earth orbiting the Sun. And you know it, because someone else has proven it.

The very notion of "facts" being contemplated by sentient beings is totally dependent on the notion of "knowledge", and has neither sense nor meaning without the latter.

If we are in disagreement over the most fundamental laws of reasoning, I'm afraid further discussion has no point whatsoever. Good day to you, Sir.

This seems to be a semantically based issue.

Jaaas, if a baby is unaware that her heart is beating, does that mean that her heart ceases to beat?

I would imagine you would say no, and guess what, now you understand exactly the point so many people were trying to make.

...Or, I guess you could continue to quibble about precise definitions, but, based on paragraph 3, it seems highly unnecessary to the discussion; in fact, it may make the discussion more confusing and less clear than it would be otherwise.

The baby itself will neither assume that its heart is beating, nor that it isn't. It won't even contemplate this in the first place, because it doesn't know the concept of a beating heart.

It's you who makes the assertion the baby's heart is beating, not the baby itself. And you make the assertion, because you know that if a human being is alive, their heart must be beating.

Most cases of a faulty reasoning process displayed in this thread have to do with person A who, having no proof whether statement XYZ is true or false, think they are free to accept as a fact that XYZ is true (or that XYZ is false, whatever they like better). If person B comes along and points out the fault in the reasoning of person A, namely the unfounded assertion of an unproven hypothesis XYZ as a fact, person A tries to imply that person B asserts the opposite of person A's unfounded assertion to be true, where in fact person B has just pointed out that it is unknown whether XYZ is true or not.

"Jaaas, if a baby is unaware that her heart is beating, does that mean that her heart ceases to beat?"

You actually didn't answer the question.

Assuming that the premise, given in red, is true, does the conclusion, given in blue, follow?

Exactly jaaas, in order for something to be a fact, it was be known to be true. How can one say something is 100% fact without it being proven. People here just do not know how to interpret definitions

The reason we play games is because of the element of us humans being "not perfect" therefore are prone to errors both mentally and physically which in turn could either give us or the opponent the chance to win. And that my chess.com family gives us the excitement and thrills.

The baby does not know it but someone else does, therefore proving it.... if no one is around then you cannot be sure if the heart is still beating

Just because you can't know that the heart is beating doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't beating. Perhaps it isn't beating after all, but it's also possible that her heart would be beating.

Let's assume I am by myself in a home. How is it possible for me to sleep if I can't know I am sleeping while I am sleeping, nor can anyone else? Probably because me sleeping doesn't depend on other people, or myself, being aware of it.

Yes, during the time I was sleeping, I was ignorant of it, and yet, strangely... I feel a lot more energized the next morning compared to mornings where the night before I could account for being awake the whole time. It's as if something was happening while I was unconscious...

You are indulging in sophistries, my friend. I already told you that the baby who doesn't understand the concept of a beating heart won't even contemplate this matter, and certainly won't make any assumptions concerning it.

It is correct that a logical statement XYZ must be either be true or false, irrespective of whether person A can determine whether it's true or not. However, for as long as person A cannot determine whether statement XYZ is true or not, person A may neither claim statement XYZ to be true, nor claim statement XYZ to be false. All person A can say is "I know that statement XYZ must either be true or false, however I cannot determine whether it is true or false". It's similar to Socrates' famous claim "I know that I know nothing".

He wasn't asserting that it wasn't beating. It is you who is putting this assertion into his mouth. All he said was that it is unknown (i.e. undetermined) whether the baby's heart is beating or not if no-one is around. You can safely bet that it is either beating or not, but if you cannot tell which is true, you may not assume either possibility to be fact.

But that is just exactly it... you do not know you are sleeping till you wake up, if you do not wake up then you were not sleeping, youre dead.

"You are indulging in sophistries, my friend. I already told you that the baby who doesn't understand the concept of a beating heart won't even contemplate this matter, and certainly won't make any assumptions concerning it."

Well, my tv remote won't make any assumptions about the baby's heart beating either... I would still say the tv remote is unaware of the baby's heart beating, even if the baby's heart is actually beating.

But aside from that, if you knew much about logic, you would know that when I say I am assuming something, the statement is taken to be true and the reasoning works off from that. I can assume "firetrucks are green" -- we are not concerned with whether firetrucks actually are green, but rather, the conclusions we would be able to make if that assertion was true.

That's all logic is. Logic is about using axioms to come up with conclusions. It is not concerned with whether the axioms themselves are actually true.

There is a distinction between knowing whether you are sleeping and sleeping. Remember how I said I felt more refreshed in the morning? Isn't it sensible to assert that the ignorance of the fact that I was sleeping didn't prevent me from getting what seems to be the benefits of sleep?

Maybe I can't be 100% sure (we also can't be sure that there aren't tiny purple invisible unicorns in front of us either), but I can be pretty confident that, even though I wasn't aware of myself sleeping during the time from which I lost consciousness (night) to the time I regained it (morning), I still did sleep during that time period.

When someone says "Good day to you, sir" or "end of story" that person is assuming that his opinion just expressed is correct and there is no reason to examine that opinion or to think further.  These are expressions critical thinkers seldom use.

Critical thinkers do not just say they are correct and no other opinion is worth hearing. 

You knew your were sleeping when you woke up.... but up until that time you did not know. So how could it have been a fact that you were sleeping if you did not know until you woke, proving that you indeed were sleeping

What point are you trying to make? 

I am making a small point about people who use those terms.