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

Again, it is better to learn the proper terminology than ask everyone else to stop using it.

Using the game-theoretic definition of perfect play introduces a different sense of perfect than most chess players mean. For example, from a given drawn position, any move that doesn't lose is perfect play. That means moves that drop a pawn or a piece for no compensation (but still allow a draw), moves that allow the opponent to effortlessly draw when there are alternatives that would force the opponent to find a bunch of "only moves" -- all are perfect in the game-theoretic sense.

Not necessarily, one must assume the audience knows nothing before addressing them. Especially in a case like this when you do not know the audience you are addressing.

If your link was posted in the beginning, this would not have happened

That's correct.  Any move that leads to the best possible outcome for you is perfect play by definition.  This makes sense conceptually, too.  Moves that drop material can still be perfect play even if your best outcome is a win (sacrifices fall under this category).  

I do not think this is a different definition than most chess players mean, but I also do not think this is a very interesting topic nor one that this thread is meant to focus on.  If others would like to explore the idea, I will leave it to them.

In answer to the one question which asks how do I want my "winning by move 15" to be interpretated?

Here is what I mean. take any 10 games at random.  Examine each of the 10 games.  You will see that one side or the other had a winning position by move 15 in at least 6 of the cases.[most of the cases] "winning position" it means a strong player could and should win the position against the best human or computer in the world.

Ah, very good!  But it might turn out the game is not "fair" to begin with.

Let's play a modified version of tic-tac-toe.   We'll play on the normal 3x3 board.  X starts the game, but in this modified game, an X and an O are already placed on the board.   An X is placed in cell 1 and an O is place in cell 9, before play begins.

This silly game is a first-person win.  X can force a win by playing in Cell 3, and then when O blocks in cell 2, X forces a mate in one by playing in cell 7.

O didn't make a mistke... he/she played perfectly... but still loses each time.

It's possible the opening in chess is also "not fair" and White's first move advantage, just as in this modified tic-tac-toe game, is enough to win.

Excellent.  Well said.

Excellent.  Well said.

I think most chess players would probably not be willing to agree that the Bongcloud (1. e5 e5 2. Ke2) is perfect play, but I'd be surprised if Black has a forced win after that. It is perfect play in the game theoretic sense though (assuming it is actually a draw and that the Bongcloud still allows White a forced draw). Thus, most chess players  don't mean the game-theoretic sense when answering the question "is 2. Ke2 perfect play after 1. e4 e5?". Likewise in many other discussions among chess players who don't know anything about game theory.

As for chess is a draw but cannot be proven 100%>  Yes, chess is a draw and it cannot be proven 100%

Do, I have the right to express my opinion that chess is a draw even though my evidence is only something like 99%?  My answer is "yes"

Do most people think chess is a draw with best play?  Probably not as probably most people do not even play chess.

The statement about what happens in the first 15 moves was just a comment I made to show that we are far from being able to play perfect chess in most of our games.

I see where you are coming from now that I know the game theory meaning of perfect play. In that case though the second player was not perfect since he aggreed to the game haha, but serious I get the point now...... Is a first move in chess really that much more advantageous? 

I'm looking for an operational definition that can be used to check some games. Thus my suggestion that a strong engine gives a -+ or +- evaluation by move 15. We can easily check some games and we can all agree that a strong engine does or not say -+ or +-. But we can't all agree on whether "a strong player could and should win the position against the best human or computer in the world" for many positions, because for many positions, it won't be possible to determine the answer, and in many positions, strong players will disagree whether it's probably a forced win or just a strong advantage but "not quite winning".

Are you not willing to give an engine cutoff like +/- 1.5 or -+ or +-? If you leave it as just an English sentence, then your assertion can't be tested, because it doesn't allow for any kind of procedure we can all agree on in order to test it.

sapientdust, I would be surprised that Black could not win vs your sequence.

A belief can also be a fact.  Because someone believes something does not mean it is not a fact.

Because many people want 100% proof of something before they will call it a "fact" does not mean it is not a fact.

I believe "evolution" is a fact but maybe more than one half the population in the USA does not believe it is a fact.  Nevertheless, it is a fact.

[I know this last statement will get me in trouble with many posters] 

has anyone taken a poll of players master and above re if they believe chess is a draw with perfect play or not?  If so post it here please.

There are various ways my statement about a winning position in 15 moves in most game can be tested. I do not mind using chess engines to prove or disprove if a position is winning or not. 

ponz111, you may be right. I didn't realize it was as bad according to the engines as it seems to be. But my general point was that there are plenty of openings that might drop a pawn or a couple of tempos for no compensation at all. They would be perfect play if they don't change the result from the best achievable result from the initial position, but most chess players wouldn't consider it perfect play.

On the separate topic of whether most games were winnable at some point before move 16, do you understand my point about your English sentence definition being not very useful, because it doesn't allow us to test your claim? I think it's an interesting proposition and would like to test it on some of my games, but there's no way for me to do that since I don't have access to a bunch of GMs, and there would some games were they wouldn't all agree anyway.

What engine evaluation is acceptable? Shall we just agree that one of the common GUIs represents it as either +- or -+, or do you want to give a specific numeric cutoff? I'm curious to go through some of my slow games and see how many were won at some point according to whatever definition you accept.

Ponz, you are a funny guy. Believing something to be true does not make it true, or a fact. Your entire argument is based on a belief whichyou are presenting as a fact - in other words, even though it is POSSIBLE that what you are saying is true, your argumentation is horrible. 

Just fyi: