If white plays a game without any mistakes or blunders...

It has not been definitively shown that chess is a draw, a win for white, or even a win for black. First move advantage is empirical and likely, but it is a heuristic. Chess is not fundamentally different from other perfect information games, which can have a starting position as zugzwang. For chess, it seems extremely unlikely based on our approximate understanding of the game, but it is not shown at all. Anyone telling you they "know" chess is a forced draw is lying, the only way to show that would be a mathematical proof.

@Akbar2thegreat If you read the links you provided, especially the first, you will see that all the statements there are from GMs/IMs who believe without proof that chess is a win or a draw (I have such an opinion too... put a gun to my head I would say it's probably a draw) but none of them have shown it rigorously, and if someone had it would be of enough importance that it would be the only thing on that page :)

Also, you quoted something that I can't find in any of your resources, and which I think is likely not provable by current techniques...

"white plays a solid game with no mistakes or blunders.
black plays an objectively better game."

This makes very little (if any) sense.

#12 - Idk about that (either). If white plays a perfect game, how is it possible for an opportunity for black to mate or even win material possible? The creation of that opportunity would technically be an imperfection, so yes, the question makes no sense.

I'm really trying to bite my tongue here, but again these dubious statements from @tpr :

"From gambits we know 1 pawn = 3 tempi." This is a rule of thumb at best. It has not been proven in any objective way. It's just an assertion, and to use it as part of a logical proof, it would in itself have to be rigorously proven.

"To win you need an advantage of 1 pawn." Again, this is a rule of thumb. It is trivially easy to come up with symmetrical situations where 1 tempo IS enough to win. For example https://lichess.org/analysis/8/8/8/2K1p3/4P1k1/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1 Whoever has the move wins. This counterexample excepts the premise.

Since both premises are flawed, the conclusion is flawed. Although like @Henryprickett and even @tpr himself, I do think that chess is likely a forced draw, I would not pretend that such a thing is "known" in the absence of rigorous proof, and neither would anyone who is actively involved in the search for that solution.

And it's not like any of this is new to you, @tpr . I've pointed out the problems in that argument before. If a foundational premise of a syllogism has exceptions, the conclusion is disqualified, even if the syllogism is internally consistent. Or as they say on the internet, "Your argument is invalid," literally. It is disingenuous to continue to use that argument once you have been exposed to its flaws.

Chess is a draw but some black defenses walk on a razor's edge. For example, if you play the Caro Kann the engine eval during the opening is about +0.3. However, it's also well known that the price you pay for safety in the Caro is that it's harder to win for black. On the other hand, defenses like the Benoni give an immediate edge of around +0.8 to white. However, it's a lot easier for white to make a blunder in such a complex opening i.e., black has better winning AND losing chances in risky openings.

Thus, every player has to assess whether they thrive in more chaotic openings where there's more opportunities for creativity or whether they are more successful in calm positions where positional themes dominate over tactical themes.

We don’t have a formal mathematical proof that Chess is a draw (we have proven that 5x5 Gardner’s Minichess is a draw, though [1]), but the empirical evidence points that direction: The stronger the Chess players, the higher the percentage of draws. [2] Indeed, in LC0 vs. Stockfish matches, we need to force the engines to play unbalanced openings, otherwise the matches end with 100 drawn games. [3]

I don’t think anyone in this thread is arguing that Chess isn’t a draw when played perfectly. It’s a matter of how much evidence people need before they can comfortably say “Chess is a draw”. I am content that the evidence we have shows that Chess is a draw, with the caveat I will change my opinion if presented with reliable evidence showing otherwise.

[1] https://github.com/ianfab/Fairy-Stockfish/wiki/Solved-games

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

[3] https://blogchess2016.blogspot.com/2021/01/opening-selection-tcec-20-superfinal.html

Since you can after all be two pieces up at the end and not be able to win, chess has quite a large drawing margin.

#12 #13 engish is hard, I used as few words as possible to as quickly as possible try to get my meaning across and it's never going to be perfect. for example.

if white plays a perfect game,

I don't think I used the word perfect, I tried to convey white didn't play a perfect game. Yet my message was interpreted to mean "white plays a perfect game"

I agree with the below

"If white plays a perfect game, how is it possible for an opportunity for black to mate or even win material possible? The creation of that opportunity would technically be an imperfection, so yes, the question makes no sense"

but that's not the question I asked.

#14
You are free to believe whatever you want, but I dislike you unjustly calling my statements 'dubious', 'disingenious', 'disqualified', 'invalid', 'flawed'...

'"From gambits we know 1 pawn = 3 tempi." This is a rule of thumb at best. It has not been proven in any objective way. It's just an assertion, and to use it as part of a logical proof, it would in itself have to be rigorously proven.'
-- I write a chess forum post, not a paper in a mathematical journal. This comes from study of gambits. Gambits where a player gives up a pawn for 2 tempi are refuted. Gambits where a player gives a pawn for 3 tempi are sound in the sense that the tempi allow to create threats that force the defender to at least give back the pawn, so 3 tempi compensate the pawn. Gambits where a player gives a pawn for 4 tempi generally are winning as the tempi allow an irresistible attack. This leads to the rule 3 tempi = 1 pawn. That is not my invention.

'"To win you need an advantage of 1 pawn." Again, this is a rule of thumb.'
-- "The winning of a pawn among good players of even strength often means the winning of the game." - Capablanca
Of course there are exceptions: in some endgames 1 pawn or even 2 or more pawns are not enough to win. As Aronian explained, these safe havens are the main reason why chess is a draw. Likewise in checkers 3 queens vs. 1 queen being a draw is the main reason why checkers is a mathematically proven draw. Anyway the defender tries to reach a safe haven and the players with the pawn more tries to steer clear of the safe havens. With two strong players a direct attack on the king will not succeed: attack and defence balance out. So to win you must queen a pawn. To queen a pawn you need one more pawn. Some endgames you can win by a positional advantage, but the plan then is to convert said positional advantage to the win of a pawn. The pawn is the smallest material currency on the board.

'It is trivially easy to come up with symmetrical situations where 1 tempo IS enough to win. For example lichess.org/analysis/8/8/8/2K1p3/4P1k1/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1 Whoever has the move wins. This counterexample excepts the premise.'
-- When talking about the first move advantage, we are talking about a development tempo in the opening, not a tempo in the endgame. In some endgames whoever has the move wins and in some endgames whoever has the move loses.

Since both premises are valid, the conclusion is valid.

"Chess is a draw" - Fischer
This has not yet been proven in the mathematical sense, but has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence:
TCEC high draw rate despite imposed slightly unbalanced openings
AlphaZero 98% draw rate, higher draw rate with more time, even high draw rate with stalemate = win
ICCF 98% draw rate
Classical world championship 12 draws out of 12 games
Expert opinions of world champions and top grandmasters: Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Spassky, Fischer, Adorjan, Aronian...

@tpr "Expert opinions" is all that they are. Opinions. It's an opinion that I share, but as someone with a strong background in the maths and sciences, seeing opinions stated as fact is almost offensively arrogant.

The expert opinions that matter in terms of truly solving the question come from mathemeticians and game theorists, not players. Almost universally, these experts characterize it not only as an unsolved problem, but one that is unlikely to be solved in our lifetimes. Many do opine that chess is a forced draw, but they are careful to clearly state it as an informed opinion, not a known.

My use of the word "dubious" is because those premises ARE dubious in a technical sense. It is not a term of disparagement but an accurate survey of their truth-value. As for the word "disingenuous," well, you strike me as intelligent enough to understand the problem with concluding a logical argument founded on flawed premises. If you repeat that argument anyway without contextualizing its weaknesses, how else to describe it?

I could repeat the problems with using suboptimal play in support of a universal claim about OPTIMUM play, etc., but that gets us nowhere. Suffice it to say that until pure btute-force algorithms have explored the entire game tree from the start position, optimal play is impossible in practice, even for the strongest engines. We will probably have a weak solution via mathematical proof DECADES before this is achieved, but as of now we have neither nor any prospects of having either anytime soon.

There's nothing personal here. In general, I respect your level of chess knowledge, particularly in the areas of improvement advice and chess history. But in this case, I cannot respect the conclusion that it's known, even "beyond any reasonable doubt," nor your assertion that rules of thumb are "valid" foundational premises, especially when you acknowledge that there are exceptions. Well then, how do you know -- beyond simple assertion -- that the initial position is not one such exception?