I know what mathematics is since I have a Ph.D. in it from one of the best universities in the world. I think the notion that "Numbers are a concept that humans made" is childish and silly.
Well first I was not talking to you, I was talking to btickler who I clearly quoted. Second, then what are they Mr. Ph. D.? Enlighten me, considering I talk to them on a regular basis?
Frankly, if you don't know what a number is, there is little that I can do to make up for your deficits.
Now to get away from the numbers argument that we're having for a little while...
There r a lot of games that are drawn when played perfectly. You could even argue that soccer, when played perfectly, is a 0-0 draw, as virtually all goals are at least partially the result of some sort of defensive error.
I know what mathematics is since I have a Ph.D. in it from one of the best universities in the world. I think the notion that "Numbers are a concept that humans made" is childish and silly.
I'm sorry, but when I try to decide whether or not to listen to something someone says, I don't care if you have a PhD from one of the best universities in the world, or if you're a homeless guy who's never been to elementary school. I make my decision based solely on what you're saying.
+1.
The try to create (forge ?) an authority was both pointless and pathetic.
Now to get away from the numbers argument that we're having for a little while...
There r a lot of games that are drawn when played perfectly. You could even argue that soccer, when played perfectly, is a 0-0 draw, as virtually all goals are at least partially the result of some sort of defensive error.
@macer75: Generally speaking: you are right that normal goals are at least partially due to defensive errors. But some goals are just brilliant. Only one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n275iW54o68
If you see this goal, knowing that it is sheer brilliance - and in my opinion well defended, then might it be that chess is not a draw after all. The goal of Maradona against England could be another example of sheer brilliance overcoming good defense.
@jaaas: You focus on a small detail, but I don't know if you get the point of the example about Mercury. It is the theory that needs confirmation, not the fact. There is no need of confirmation to be fact. There is need of confirmation that a theory is in line with the facts.
I did not want to misquote you and as far as I understand the English language I did not misinterpret the meaning of your sentence. If I did, as stated before, then I ask you to correct that yourself. The confusion stems from the use of the verb to confirm. I think the use of words like acknowledge and recognize are much better to describe how a fact can be perceived to be a fact.
If you are walking down the street and you see a wall, please do not confirm or proof there is a wall. That might hurt you. Acknowledge or recognize it in time I would say.
Perfect Play (in a borderline infinite game, chess) is an oxymoronic idea.
No wonder this thread is tied up in knots. Try using String Theory if you insist on forcing that issue. And good luck with that.
But fighting over the meaning of fairly simple words like "fact," shows a lack of education. And no amount of appeals to Authority, Quantum Mechanics, Taylor Expansions, or Symbolic Logic 101 can rectify that pinheaded attitude.
I especially liked that 100-year-old, cut and paste job from logical positivism in the Wiki (in post #313), and all of that guy's posts that followed.
What planet do you hail from, @Jaaas? Your chess sucks, but your education is proceeding apace? Hardly.
Perfect Play + Solutions to the Game of Chess = Mindless Chaos. [Q.E.D.]
AND THAT'S A FACT, strongly evidenced by this thread.
If you're not convinced, just re-read the whole circular mess. 
Actually me and my friends are like 86% sure that chess is wining for white, assuming perfect play from both sides.
I know it's less than your 99.999999% but still, to me it is a fact that chess is winning for white. But what is a fact for me might not be a fact for you
:D
The universe is NOT perfect. Neither is chess.
Why are those FACTS so hard for chess players to agree upon?
We are such an eccentric lot. Present company included. 
Numbers are a concept that humans made to explain our observations. Do you even know what mathematics is?
Please tell me you can tell the difference between a conceptual idea and an observation. If you directly observe a rock and then make up the word "rock", it does not then mean that rocks are a concept ;). If you conceive of the idea of creating concrete based on a rock, that is a concept.
Mathematics (numbers and rules and behaviors, etc.) exist and they work whether or not there is language to describe them. The number 3 is the number 3 regardless of what you call it..."a rose by any other name...". Gravity continues to work without being named, or indeed, without the human race even existing.
zbord we often talk about humans playing chess but the truth is possibly that we humans are really all Martians as there is evidence that life on earth started at a time when Mars had life and earth did not.
Meteorites with chemicals and substances from Mars could have started life on earth.
@BBickler, the Universalist Theory of Forms and Maths is a 2000 thousand year old dispute, of which you are apparently ignorant. Whatever.
Mathematics lost its certainty almost a hundred years ago. Ditto with Logical Positivism.
The same conceptual disputes live on, however, in present day conversation (and disputes) between mainline physicists and String Theorists.
With the former believing the latter are "all tied up in knots."
The FACT that we humans are made from starshite, changes nothing in this crazy thread. But the Quest for the HOLY GRAIL continues --
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/true-or-false-chess-is-a-draw-with-best-play-from-both-sides?page=4
I especially liked that 100-year-old, cut and paste job from logical positivism in the Wiki (in post #313), and all of that guy's posts that followed.
Do you have anything to back up your brazen and obnoxious accusations? If you accuse someone of having lifted content, you should be able to point to the supposed original resource, especially that you claim someone to have "copied and pasted" stuff.
All that's in that post (and other posts of mine) has been authored by myself exclusively, without referencing any sources besides what is in my own head (let alone "copying and pasting"), apart from direct references to or quotations of what other forum members have said, of course. If you assert otherwise, then post links to any specific content I supposedly have lifted.
That is all that I have to say to you.
Richard Rorty left the pinnacle of 20th century analytical philosophy at Princeton, and moved into literature.
Try following his lead, @Jaaas. You'll be a better man for it.
@BBickler, the Universalist Theory of Forms and Maths is a 2000 thousand year old dispute, of which you are apparently ignorant. Whatever.
Are you talking about Plato's Theory of Forms? Perhaps you can link me to some of the discussion groups around the "Universalist Theory of Forms and Maths".
If you are talking about some linguistic relativity argument...well, I don't care. The whole point of my posts is that the universe exists and the rules that govern it, including numbers/math, also exist...regardless of human approval ;). If you are going for the "prove to me that the universe actually exists outside my brain..." approach, then we're just going to have to disagree.
This book has been around for many years. Great read. You'll enjoy it --
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-The-Loss-of-Certainty/dp/B003VT4WZG/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378164379&sr=1-3&keywords=mathematics+loss+of+certainty
Perfection is not of this world.
Perfect chess play is very much possible. If you think otherwise, you must not have heard of endgame tablebases. For now only complete tablebases for any positions with up to six, and for some positions with seven chessmen on the board exist.
There is no theoretical hurdle which would prevent 32-man tablebases from being created, which would be equivalent to solving chess (and definitely proving or disproving the hypotheses of the OP). There's just physical hurdles, such as having enough space, time, matter, and energy to actually accomplish that. The Lomonosov supercomputer has been working for months on end to compute just a complete set of 7-man tablebases, and there are no concrete prospects of a completion of these as of yet.
I know what mathematics is since I have a Ph.D. in it from one of the best universities in the world. I think the notion that "Numbers are a concept that humans made" is childish and silly.
I'm sorry, but when I try to decide whether or not to listen to something someone says, I don't care if you have a PhD from one of the best universities in the world, or if you're a homeless guy who's never been to elementary school. I make my decision based solely on what you're saying.