True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

I think there is a very high probability that most people here need to get out more often. 

Some people have time on their hands and a need to waste it.

These forums exist for that purpose. Fly fishing, of course, is a better way to waste time.

I am into that form of fishing as well!

Chess is a draw with no play from either side.....

Yep

I think that's a forfeit for the player on the move.

You must think you're very superior but everything I wrote was relevant and made sense. I know English may not be your first language but doesn't that mean you should be more careful in criticising something you don't understand?

On another note, just reread my comment until it starts to make sense and then you'll have learned something. We're discussing the difference between notional impossibility and real impossibility. If a model coincides with reality then it's a duplicate of that reality (which is, itself, impossible) Therefore all information is bound to be incomplete. But all you are discussing is your notion of what that reality is and in a closed system, such as chess, the potential is there for accurate analysis. In that way, chess isn't "real" but "ideal". So we can work out that it isn't or is a draw, if we know how, and probability doesn't come into it.

Your subject may be maths but mine is logic and philosophy, which trumps maths, because all mathematics needs to be interpreted *verbally* or it's meaningless.

For that matter, it has a precise definition in Telugu. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't understand it.

Do try to stop being silly.

Your problem, Prometheus, is that you don't realise mathematics is simply just another language that has to be verbally interpreted in order to have any meaning. For that matter, the same can be said for formal logic. You probably think mathematics is more precise than verbal languages but that isn't so, because mathematics would be meaningless without interpretation. Mathematics is simply more efficient than verbal languages in some applications and, of course, less efficient in others. You are concentrating on the positives rather heavily.

And furthermore, what do you imagine is "I could tell you what it is but then I suspect you'd not understand anything", if not an insult? It is, in fact, an admission of laziness at best and inability at the worst. You're out of your depth.

You probably think mathematics is more precise than verbal languages but that isn't so, because mathematics would be meaningless without interpretation. Mathematics is simply more efficient than verbal languages in some applications and, of course, less efficient in others.