Criticism, theory, etc.

In a recent discussion on Usenet, rec.games.chess.analysis
my 'conjecture' (hypothesis) that chess fundamentally is
a draw, was critized by some people. Trying to give
some evidence, i showed some standard comp-comp
games, eg. with Rl Zaitsev, and Queens Indian,
where black clearly could maintain a draw.
But people may still question such 'evidence'
of course, as there are many many other lines.

Yet, with perfect play for both sides, assuming
white tries to maintain some initial positional
advantage, i found that often Ruy Lopez, and
against d4 black Nimzo Indian or Queens Indian
are the result of such 'perfect'games.

Then again, one may wonder whats the relevance
of mentioning the RL Zaitsev variation as the
main drawing line for black after 1.e4 , as
white for example doesnt have to play 9.h3
in the Ruy Lopez. Well this doesnt matter,
otherwise i wouldnt have mentioned such
lines. Of course i also have analyzed other
possibilities, eg. with 9 d4, the Boguljubow
variation, but then i found even easier
drawing lines for black.

Same after 1.d4 Nf6, white could play instead
of 2.c4 lines as 2.c3, or Bg5, but also then
theoretically black has no problem in
achieving drawish positions. So indeed, its
my conviction that chess fundamentally
is a draw; in case of perfect play of
both sides, of course.