I am as fast as Usain Bolt.  It has never been proven that I am faster than him or he is faster than me, therefore I am as fast as Usain Bolt.

ok, time is up. And here is the prove! Checkmate in 1!

I will use logical notation:

-> means then.

means if and only if.

means if and only if.

Argument : With Best Play for both sides Chess is a Draw

Using logical notation:

Best Play for both sides -> Chess is a draw.

Prove:

Chess is not a draw -> Not Best Play by Both sides.

1. Win for white: Black doesn't play his/her best.

2. Win for black: white doesn't play his/her best.

3. Win for white: both sides play their best.

4. Win for Black: Both sides play their best.

No. 1 and No. 2 are correct and  proven immediately. So it remains to prove No. 3. and No.4. to be wrong.

If No. 3 is correct -> No. 4 is wrong. If No.4 is correct -> No. 3 is wrong. Hence No. 3 happens or No.4 happens and cannot be both at the same time. So, we only have to prove No. 3 or No. 4.

Anybody with me so far?

I cannot always tell the points being made.

But is anyone willing to take me up to test my other statement.

I think most people do not like to be disconcerted with a new idea and that is one reason I am getting no takers... 

No offense, but your logic is terrible.  That's not a proper conclusion from the given facts.

Thats exactlu right aulthough I think also that we play for fun.

I will give the final proof tomorrow. I am waiting for more refutations for my argument.

Interesting attempt by bean, but it solves nothing. The question is still the same. Knowing for a fact that 4 is not the case because white has a small advantage, you need to prove that at optimal play of both, white can win.

Now, i state that optimal play does not exist. Nobody can prove the best first move and there are too many possible moves after that to ever come to solve the game. It will stay a game forever.

There is no best first move theoretically as a number of first moves lead to a draw. Also White can never force a win from the start position.

All  of this cannot be proved to the satisfaction of all. Just as in the United States the theory of evolution, while proved, cannot be proved to the satisfaction of millions.

jadarite, if you are serious with your question then you are an example of what I mean.

You would need to be educated so some degree about evolution for me to try and explain further.  The term "apes became human" is quite ambigous.

However I am not going into the theory of evolution. It has been proven over and over again but still many do not accept the proof.

The theory of evolution is often disputed and not the place here. However those who seriously question evolution can go to the Open Discussion and debate all they want and you will also get an education about many things.  

Ask your questions there and you will get answers.

ponz111, I have a question.

When you posted that topic, did you expect anything else than endless trolling about whether chess "played perfectly" being a draw ? Or did you genuinely want to debate the programmed dead of chess ? (not that it would have attracted less trolling, of course)

No, I did not realize there were so many people not convinced chess is a draw with best play. Or people who would demand proof chess is  draw.

So my mistake. 

@Ponz111: pure curiosity, you make two claims:

1. chess is a draw, --> that is my unproven conviction too.

2. after 15 moves is one of the two players winning. --> i don't believe this statement to be true.

Both statements seem a contradiction to me. Although it applies to many games on my level, it does not imho on a lot of games at GM level.

Therefor, can you tell me who is winning in the next position? It is a theoretical position, meaning that a lot of GMs have chosen to play like this. (I have never played this position.)

This is a standard position in the Ruy Lopez after move 15 of black.

Who is winning or is this a draw?

If one of the players is winning, then it must be clear that one of the players have made gross errors, because a winning position implies a serious disbalance on the board. Could you please indicate which elements of this position cause this position to be lost for one of the players?

Let's say like chess you decided to fill one glass first.

name that white.

Now before filling the second glass stop..think..which glass is more full??white of course.The other one which is black hasn't even been filled yet losses the "game" because white filled the glass up first.

Here is another analogy.

at the end of the move both sides wouldn't have kings but white would have won because it plays first and the black king was removed from the board first.

Here is another board.

forget the fact that only a complete patzer would play like that but look at the game.

White moves 1st and even if white and black have symetric positions after almost every move white's ability to play first gives it a decisive advantage.

perfect play on both sides is impossible.

white has a +0.0001 at the beginning of the game and perfect play from both sides only maintains is but does not bring it down.

Actually, I have no idea what you are saying.

My statement regarding the 15th move is about the average game not some grandmaster game or position.

I say most games--very few of the billions of games are played by grandmasters.

there is a difference between most games and one grandmaster position.

I am still looking for someone to test this with me. Loek are you willing? 

I can play 15 moves without you having any clue on who wins in the end.

average players don't make blunders or attack fiercly before 15 moves.

So there is no way a player can get decisive advantage at move no 15 or before unless his opponent knows very little about opening theory.