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

It does not mean that you're right either, but you do as if you were.

For crying out loud, please stop reasserting the farfetched claim about the supposedly "universally known" inherent draw in chess. It is you and other fellows such as zborg who are claiming knowing something you don't (and nobody does).

MrEdCollins, myself and a few others have simply been stating (and providing non-fallacious argumentation) that it is unknown whether chess is inherently a drawn game or not, which reflects the state of the matters.

Also, there is no point in you repeating ad nauseam the reverse-ad-hominem sophism how most GMs' supposed "belief" in chess being inherently drawn is supposed to be a proof. I already mentioned that many solutions to chess studies which used to be accepted as valid even by world's leading players have been refuted by tablebases.

Nobody knows whether chess is inherently drawn or not. Something which is not known cannot be claimed to be anyone's knowledge, let alone "universal knowledge".

^

Why don't you simply say "Most people believe that perfect chess is a draw." In this case it's not stated as a fact but the point is the same. ^^

Maybe it doesn't even have to be perfect but just close enough to perfection in order to be always drawn.

And isn't it still a goal to get there? As long there's someone able to beat you, you haven't reached that state of near perfection.

And since computers play at roundabout 300-400 ELO higher than the best humans and they still occassionally beat eachother, it is quite save to assume that noone will ever manage to become good enough to at least draw everyone else.

I did not say it was "universally known" that chess is a draw. You misquote me. 

I said that almost all the players who are best at chess believe chess is a draw with best play by both sides. [this is very far from "universally known"]

There are many things which cannot be proven true but are true.

Often we have to make assumptions in life if we have very good evidence.

I assume the sun will not explode next week. I cannot prove this 100% However I am 99.99% sure and go by that assumption.

I assume you believe this statement to be one of those things?

Xilmi  The reason I do not state that most people beieve that perfect chess is a draw is I am not sure most people believe that. Probably most people do not even play chess.

I am certain that the highest rated players [most of them] believe chess is a draw.

This issue is pretty simple.  Most (not all) games are probably a draw with perfect play.  Also, in most games no one can approach playing perfectly.  We play the games because they are fun to play.  This should satisfactorily answer all the questions in this thread, shouldn't it?

Yes, chess is most likely a draw if played perfectly; no that hasn't been proven.  I don't think anything in my post is seriously in dispute, is it?

dunnoItAll  good post!  I agree. with the post except of "most" rather than "all"

in your first sentence.

If a game is played perfectly by both sides, it will never end in a loss for either side.

@ponz111: how do you intend your "winning by move 15" to be interpreted? Is something like "a strong engine says +- or -+ (at 20+ ply) no later than move 15" what you mean?

dunnoItAll  good post!  I agree. with the post except of "most" rather than "all"

in your first sentence.

If a game is played perfectly by both sides, it will never end in a loss for either side.

Stop trying to have your cake and eat it, too.  

You go through half the thread saying perfect play is absolutely a draw, and the other half of the thread admitting this is not actually proven.  It's your first sentence, of your original post, that is the incorrect statement ;)...

I've seen your other threads, so I am reluctant to consider this willful trolling...but, it sure walks like a duck...

There are many games where perfect play results in a loss for one side.  Some examples:  Chopsticks (second player can force a win), Connect Four (first player can force a win), Qubic (first player wins), etc.

I mean, it is actually even very trivial to imagine this.  Let's create a game where this is true now:

There are x number of coins in a bowl.  On your turn, you may take any number of coins from the bowl, but you must always take at least one.  The person taking the last coin from the bowl loses.

It should be easy to see that this is an easy win for the first player to move, even if both players play perfectly.

I think he meant a chess game.  It was implied by the context.

Well he was responding to my comment and I did not mean a chess game.  I meant games in general.  Assuming it was just a perfect chess game he meant, we are back to that not being proven, just strongly believed.

Why do we play? Coz we love to play the game thats why.

Hi ponz, 

That statement isn't true... yet.  This hasn't been proven yet.  If chess turns turns out be a first-person win, or a second-person win, and it certainly might, your statement will prove incorrect. 

But if chess is ever solved, I will admit your statement will most likely prove to be true.  I also believe a draw with perfect play is the most likely outcome.  But you just can't say that yet.  It's just not true yet.  It's just your opinion.  It's not a fact.

If you don't understand this, I'm guessing you simply don't undersand what the term first-person win means.

VICTOR plays Connect Four perfectly, and yet with perfect play on both sides, White wins with every time.

I think one should refrain from using perfect. In the connect four example, with best play the player that moves first will win. I said before I think perfect is absolute. To say someone plays perfect and loses is contradicting to me

Perfect means making the best possible move every time.  It is a clearly defined game theory term.  It is better to learn what it means than to ask everyone else to stop using it because you have a misconception about it.

Here's a quick easy way to read up on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_play#Perfect_play

According to FIDE I have higher winning percentage then Anand. Because of the draws.

Cliffnotes to those who don't wanna read all the comments: 

ITT we have Christians, who believe that chess is a draw. 

ITT we have Atheists, who believe that chess is not a draw. 

And ITT we have Agnostics, who don't believe in either of those until it is proven. 

For what it's worth, I fall in the third category. It is very easy for us to think that chess is a draw (symetrical starting position, seemingly equal opportunity, etc.) but chess is so immensely deep that we cannot know the answer. There are a plenty of games where a side that moves first loses even with perfect play, or a side that moves first wins with perfect play. Symetrical starting position does not mean the game is a draw.. 

Ponz, what you are stating is simply a belief, not a fact. And you would be surprised at how many strong players would not agree with your statement (therefore I find it funny you keep using it as an argument) :) 

The point I am trying to make is not everyone knows game theory, they have better things to do with there lives. I am simply saying it is better to say best.