A perfect game of chess is always a draw. Discuss.

A perfect game of chess is always a draw. This is what I have discovered when matching Houdini against Houdini. If you match a very strong player against an equally strong player, the result will likely be a draw. 

edited moderator AndrewSmith 

I believe that if we define a perfect game of chess as a game of chess played by two equally very strong players, the game will likely, but not always be a draw. 

Therefore, a perfect game of chess will likely be a draw, per OP's posits.

The perfect game of chess has to have a mistake by one of the two players. That's what makes it perfect.

Chess is a game of errors. A good chess player recognizes and takes advantage of the errors. White, by having the first move, probably makes the first error. Therefore, the perfect game of chess would have black recognizing white's error first and capitalizing upon it:) 

you know, this is always a very interesting thing to talk about.

In my opinion, a perect game of chess is impossible to know for sure, at least right now. In order for a perfect game of chess to be figured out, we need a computer that can analize every single possible outcome in a game of chess, and find the best move order untill to end of the game. But yet again, finding the "perfect game" or best move order is really an opinion that theoretically cannot be proven. Even though almost anyone can agree that e4 or d4 is a much better first move than a4 or h4, it gets alot more complicated then that. This is where many computers flaw, and why humans can beat computers. computers can make mistakes along the line, but usually their miskates are very far down the line (20 move or more) and besides Super GM's, humans cannot see 20+ moves. And they can make positional mistakes as well, based on the way they were programed. basically, since a computer was originally programed by a human, it too can make mistakes (yet, a lot less then humans do).

Another major thing, is that if chess was, at perfect play, a win for white, then chess would be invalidated as a game, at least at the GM level, which in turn would make chess lessly played in the lower levels, and chess in turn would become less popular professonally (yet still played alot for fun at lower levels). Yet again, the same thing would happen if GM's could memorize and perfect a forced draw from move one.

I could go on about this, but I choose not to, very interesting topic though.

Has man ever set two master chess engines upon each other?

yes, and it actully been done a lot.

I'd like to believe chess is won by one of the sides (would be fun if it's Black) but probably it's draw with perfect play...

Wouldn't an always drawn game be a boring game, not a perfect one?

The definition of perfect game is when each side makes best possible moves

But if you matched houdini against Junior, Junior would win every game. So really you've proven that two players with the exact same skill level will draw eachother if no one blunders. 

maybe

A perfectly played game, free of blunders,  will always result in a draw?  Thanks, Captain Obvious!

In perfect chess game where each player plays best move given the situation, will result in white winning. White has advantage of making the first move and black will always respond to it, even though response will be best. 

@14

An advantage of 1 tempo is not enough to win.
You need an advantage of 1 pawn to win.
A pawn can queen, a tempo cannot queen.
Here is an example of a perfect game.
After 57 moves it ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164344 

     At present there is no way to determine what makes "a perfect game". The very best players often win/lose games between them, and many super-GM draws have multiple inferior moves--enough on each side to neutralize each other. So you can't take human games as examples of perfection. 

     Engines can outplay the best humans but we can't take their word for what is perfect either. All the best present-day engines will easily defeat the top engines from early this century, and all of today's engines will be handily beaten by the top mid-century engines. So you can't get a proper evaluation of perfection from engines either.

     With no clear example of "perfection" the question cannot be answered.

Here is a series of games SF15 v SF15 played from a much simpler position than that at the start of the game.

SF15 is a very strong player and SF15 is equally strong. The result is, as you say, likely to be a draw. In fact all 12 games are drawn.

Here is a game Syzygy v Syzygy from the same position.

Syzygy is a perfect player from this position as is Syzygy.

The result is a win for Black. If Syzygy plays Syzygy from the same position the games will always be won by Black. 

Moral: A very strong player is not a perfect player.

Games of chess between very strong players do not indicate the result of perfect games. If they're out of their depth the result will likely be a draw whatever the result should be.

That is not known yet. It is theoretically possible that black with perfect play can respond to white in a way that ultimately forces a win or draw for black.

Probably, but it's not known. 

Think of chess as tic-tac-toe, which is solved. With best play, tic-tac-toe is a draw, and there are many ways to reach the draw. 

Chess is exactly the same because it's a board game which can't carry on forever - there's a limit to the number of moves players can play. And that set of moves is even less if you only picked the best possible moves that would lead to a draw for each side. 

Just think tic tac toe.