Chess and philosophy

I have always thought that chess is very meditative, and, can be seen as a metaphor for existence. I suppose that it could also be stretched to a literal manifestation of the battle at Kurukushetra in the Bhagavad Gita, since there is no reason to want to defeat your opponent, other than that is what the game is, or each players' respective destiny, as it was Arjuna's. What is the perfect chess match? Suppose that two masters of chess played each other, by perfect chess doctrine, would either of them take a single piece? Could the game ever end?

Though I cannot know what you might mean by 'perfect chess doctrine', if I make the assumption that my next move should a) loss the least, or b) gain the most, then it's quite possible that taking a piece might be the only move that satisfies that goal. Having agreed on that, it's entirely possible that many further exchanges might present the same choice, ultimately arriving at a board with fewer pieces. As for never ending, that would again have to be the choice of players for the 50 move rules would likely come into play, at which point to keep from ending the game a non-optimal move might have to be made, which might lead to something other than a draw.

Actually, that all sounds way too abstract to me. So, I suggest you just play a wild gambit and hope to outplay your opponent.

What is the perfect chess doctorine?
It would ultimately depend on what each master was trying to accomplish.

There are certain limitations to chess. The rules, the way the pieces move, and the concept of the game leaves room for only winner, loser, or a stalemate/draw.

I find it difficult to conceptualize chess as a "metaphor for existence" because there is no diplomacy in chess. From the very beginning, you are pitted against your enemy. In such a sense life is similar, if you stretch the seams. But there is no room for equality, or even un-balance. On a grand scale the connection could be something like "there are winners and there are losers" but I find that sort of philosphy inefficient and self-destructive. Even with all of its intricacies, chess is no more comparable to existence as go (which is a very difficult board game). It is, simply put, a just game.

However, there are ways in which chess can "be a metaphor" for awareness. Reflect on this for a moment.

I sometimes imagine that the pieces are actually alive (in the human sense, not just "alive"). If the pieces were restricted to the board and could only move in their natural patterns, what would be different? The will to fight? Mistakes? If each side were controlled by the king, and the kings were perfect and exact down to their tactical and strategical strength, who would win? What would be the implications of living pieces? Would they produce the "perfect chess doctorine"? 
Then again, what is perfection? So many questions, it is truly something to ponder.