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

> "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:

I don't have any opinion on whether chess is a draw, but the above can be true today with the evidence available today and wrong tomorrow as new evidence comes to light.

If only because of how unlikely it currently seems to be, I would love if they solved chess and found the starting position is zugzwang and whoever moves first loses.

At least we have 960. Granted some positions are just downright winning from one side but hey at least the draw rate is not as much as classical. This is just an opinion.

Even if chess was a draw, I would still play it.

#21
If chess were a win for black, then
we would observe more black wins than white wins
we would observe openings like 1 d3 d5 2 d4 or 1 e3 e5 2 e4 or just 1 a3 trying to pass the move obligation
we would observe a lower drawing rate in ICCF, TCEC, classical world championships, AlphaZero
we would observe a lower draw rate at higher ratings and at longer time controls
So the available data contradict that hypothesis.

#20
It is expert opinions + empirical data + logical arguments
People who have devoted their life to the game, who became world champion or at least grandmaster and who pronounce a statement about it are experts in chess regardless of whether they have a mathematical background or not.
Chess is no mathematics: if you could only move a piece after you have proof that your move is the right one, then you lose on time as early as move 1
i also have a strong background in the maths and sciences, but chess is no math. Steinitz, Lasker, Euwe were mathematicians, but that did not hinder them to become world champions in chess and to formulate guidelines for playing chess whithout providing mathematical proof. In other sciences e.g. physics empirical data is valid proof.

"Chess is a draw" - Fischer
"1 pawn suffices to win" - Capablanca
"1 pawn = 3 tempi" - Gambits

are very useful rules for practical play.

#21
Here is what Steinitz (a mathematician!) wrote:
"In fact it is now conceded by all experts that by proper play on both sides the legitimate issue of a game ought to be a draw, and that the right of making the first move might secure that issue, but is not worth the value of a pawn. It therefore follows, that theoretically as well as practically, among first-class masters of equal strength, not a single pawn can be given up by either party at any stage of the game without at least, greatly endangering the result, unless it can be soon recovered."

all of this typing #24

"
If chess were a win for black, then
we would observe more black wins than white wins
we would observe openings like 1 d3 d5 2 d4 or 1 e3 e5 2 e4 or just 1 a3 trying to pass the move obligation
we would observe a lower drawing rate in ICCF, TCEC, classical world championships, AlphaZero
we would observe a lower draw rate at higher ratings and at longer time controls
So the available data contradict that hypothesis.
"

is what I meant by "If only because of how unlikely it currently seems to be"

"I would love..." the rest is a fantasy.

A study which shows if chess was perfect. tpr is right. Chess is a draw.

Chess is a draw, if both play perfectly with no inaccuracies chess is a draw

@tpr In other sciences, empirical data alone is NOT proof. Indeed, one is strongly cautioned against correlation/causation fallacies and the like.

Engine play is necessarily sub-optimal. If the path to a forced win is exactly one only winning move at every juncture for the first 30 moves, a current engine will only find it by blind luck, and usually won't find it at all, since the "payout" comes waaay outside of the search horizon.

You also continuously neglect to mention an aspect of engine play that is consistent with chess being a forced win for White: the stronger the play, the higher the proportion of decisive games that go to White. In fact, the proportion of white to black wins grows NON-LINEARLY with playing strength; for example at an Elo of 3000 the ratio is about 2:1, but at 3400 it increases to about 6:1.

Given the impossibility of engines to find the optimal line at every play (the search horizon falls well short of checkmate from the opening position, and expansion does not extend every possible line; the vast majority or either pruned or not extended, in both cases due to imperfect shorthand methods for determining how "promising" each line is), increased draws are also expected with stronger play. All current tree search methods are based on some variation of a minimax algorithm, which tends to produce equality if it cannot reach an end state. Thus, looking at engine results can inform the question; for example it essentially eliminates the possibility that the initial position is zugzwang; but it cannot ANSWER it.

I must reiterate for approximately the 100th time that my OPINION is of concordance with your OPINION, that chess is a draw. Likewise, most of the experts you have mentioned clearly state that their view is an unproven but educated opinion. For example, Fischer's quote on the matter is not as you state it; as if it were a foregone conclusion. His most detailed statement on the matter (in his interview with Yasser Seirawan at the time of his 1992 rematch with Spassky) was, "It's ALMOST definite that the game is a draw theoretically." On the other hand, Pal Benko has written of Fischer that "he believed—as have other players and theoreticians—that White's first-move advantage, properly exploited, should amount to virtually a forced win." I take Benko's statement as hearsay and unreliable, but use it here to demonstrate that perhaps you overstate Fischer's confidence in that conclusion.