because we are human and we cannot play perfect and noone knows that perfect chess is a draw since chess isn't solved 100 %.
humans make inaccuries and players like Magnus Carlsen can grind a win in positions that appears to be drawish. Too many GM would just a agree to a draw in those positions.
I play because i like it so much, to get some satisfaction in my life. I don't care if the modern theory is so well known that the GMs can draw in almost all variants. My opponent is passive to commit mistakes.
Because a draw is a 1/2 point after all
A draw doesn't mean boring chess, it means both players are at around the same level and played very precisely the whole game through, not blundering or making larger mistakes. I don't think the average clubplayer-Joe can draw that easy against a master, no matter what opening he uses. And a master can't easily draw against a top GM player. And even Magnus Carlsen won't be able to draw against my Deep Fritz 13 using clouding technology and some Siemens supercomputers. The draw should get more respect since it is an accomplishment as well (not talking about those pre-arranged quick draws in the last round of some tournaments ofc.).
I agree a draw does not mean boring chess. Sometime you have mutual attacks and one side or the other has to take a draw by perpetual motion.
I like imagining the idea of a draw by perpetual motion.
Like I say in my profile: Chess talent can't be faked, so why the hell do I still enjoy this game so much? I really don't know but it's probably the same reason I enjoy target practice. All I'm doing is throwing money away but I still have fun doing it. Sometimes ancient genetic programming kicks in and I drag the target home and try to skin it.
It is pretty well known that with neither side making an error-chess is a draw.
Is it? Frankly, I don't recall this having actually been proven by any means, thus such an assumption isn't really much beyond a wild guess for the time being (and probably also for the forseeable future).
(Checkers/draughts, on the other hand, have been solved, with the result as you said.)
A draw doesn't mean boring chess, it means both players are at around the same level and played very precisely the whole game through, not blundering or making larger mistakes. I don't think the average clubplayer-Joe can draw that easy against a master, no matter what opening he uses. And a master can't easily draw against a top GM player. And even Magnus Carlsen won't be able to draw against my Deep Fritz 13 using clouding technology and some Siemens supercomputers. The draw should get more respect since it is an accomplishment as well (not talking about those pre-arranged quick draws in the last round of some tournaments ofc.).
Roman talked about the weakness of computers. Computers cannot analyze everyting from start to the end of the game and have preset values for pieces. A computer will always give the highest value to the bishop pair even in positions there it is better to have a knight and a bishop.
I guess this quote is true :"You have to take your opponent into a dark forrest were 1 plus 1 is not 2 and where the path out is only wide enough for one person."
but to find that path.....
Assuming there is such thing as "perfect play", maybe something that will be discovered with quantum computing, it's always going to end the same way no matter what. I'm glad it should end on a draw. Everyone is born equal, but people make mistakes, and some people are just idiots! That's the way chess should be. The only thing that puts you over your opponent is being a better chess player than them. Two equally matched opponents could play a very fun and engaging game of chess, end with a draw, and still consider it time well spent. It's about the journey, not the destination!
jaaas Yes, chess with perfect play by both sides ends in a draw.
Chess is too complicated to be proven a draw such as has been done in checkers.
However it is not just a wild guess that chess is a draw. Masters and experts have played millions of games and from their experience and knowledge of chess--they overwhelming know chess is a draw.
Checkers was also known by the best players to be a draw long before it was proven.
With best play,one should finally die. So why do we live?
With best play from both sides in anything, a draw would result. Think about it. But best play is practically impossible... that is why chess, along with other games/sports is/are still played.
Maybe a computer generated game where the pieces dynamically change movement orientations at random? That would be practically impossible to solve.
jaaas Yes, chess with perfect play by both sides ends in a draw.
Chess is too complicated to be proven a draw such as has been done in checkers.
However it is not just a wild guess that chess is a draw. Masters and experts have played millions of games and from their experience and knowledge of chess--they overwhelming know chess is a draw.
Checkers was also known by the best players to be a draw long before it was proven.
While it is tempting to assume this, as it seems to be a common sense prospect, it cannot be approached as fact unless proven strictly and beyond any doubt (not that in the case of chess this is to be expected to happen any time soon, if at all, as you mentioned).
Many mathematical thorems which had been deemed by some as "most likely true" ended up having been proven to be false, and vice versa.
Because some deemed a mathematical theorm as most likely true and were proven wrong has little to do with chess. Chess has been played by hundreds of millions of people and it is known that the more proficent you are in the game the more likely you are to know that chess is a draw with best play.
There is no data base of evidence as in checkers but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
When I say "know" it means it is more than 99% sure. Almost impossible to know anything is 100% sure.
Why do we try to have fun living life... If we know that the end result will be death?
Chess is a draw if both players play PERFECTLY. So far nobody really plays perfectly even among super GMs. Why play? For fun and passing time. If chess is no longer fun or one is too busy to play, one can stop playing chess.
It is pretty well known that with neither side making an error-chess is a draw.
With supergrandmaster making more and more draws and with correspondence chess with the help of computers it is very apparent that the end result of a well played chess is a draw.
Some correspondence masters know they can draw as Black after this sequence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 and from here Black can hold a draw in Centaur Chess.
My answer is 99% of all players play for the enjoyment they get out of chess even though some know the game should end in a draw.
In other words there may be drawing lines or lines which turn out to be very equal in many openings but very few players know such lines and some such lines are very complicated.
So, for most it is the creativity and being able to plan ahead and the thrill of finding a win [or a draw] and using your brain is great stuff.
Even if an opening is said to be objectively bad it can be great fun for aficionados who like to play the opening. An example of this is the Blackmar Diemer Gambit which is ranked about 10th of of more than 40 some openings as giving good practical chances. It does not matter so much that there have been given lines against that opening which seem to favor Black--you will rarely run into such lines and in the meantime have great fun.