Chess will never be solved, here's why

 Do you understand the fact that in order to call a game a "perfect" game, first of all, chess would need to be solved, and AFTERWARDS, the ENTIRE game would have to match one of those combinations in which the best moved was played by both sides for absolutely each move in the game, and a draw had been reached? 

 I seriously doubt that match between Carlsen and Nepo is one of those examples of perfect games. 

 Again, I can get draws too by stepping into forced repetition, would that mean my opponent or I played the perfect game?

 Does that mean when Nakamura drew Magnus by repetition playing the bongcloud opening, they played a "perfect" game? 

 I dont think so.

 If we play tic tac toe, and I make a mistake, and then you make a mistake, and the game ends up in a draw - would that have been a perfect game? No. In order for you to know it's not a perfect tic tac toe game, you would need to solve it first, see all potential possible games, and compare it against those in which both players play the best move each time and then it ends up in a draw.

#986
Both teams of Nepo and Carlsen have rented cloud engines during their months of preparation.
A game is perfect when it ends in a draw and when there is no improvement for white.

 No, a perfect game is a game that ends up in a draw in which each player has played the best  100% possible move in each turn. And Im assuming when chess is solved the perfect games will always be a draw, just like in tic-tac-toe, due to both sharing the same nature in finitness of potential positions.

  With your definition, then I have played several perfect games in my life regardless of previous play, and maybe Carlsen and Nepo should be studying my "perfect" games, lol.

#988
Did you ever draw a game where there was no improvement for white?

 Yes of course I have drawn endgames in which any move other than one would cause me to step into a loss position (assuming best play from my opponent), and in which my opponent would also step into a loss position if he moved anything other than that one move (assuming best play from my side). Hardly "perfect" games. 

 I have also played games in which my opponent stepped into forced repetition, in which I would have stepped into a loss position had I not force-repeated into a draw. Opponent blundered capturing a piece of mine but allowed me to counter by forcing him into a draw.

 Again, Im saying that you can't judge a perfect game by how it ends, even if at some point "there is no improvement for white". We could play and blunder each move up to move 20 and then end up playing until we reach a position where "there is no improvement for white" and it would not be a perfect game anyway.

Some endgames can be 'perfect'.  And 'perfectly solved'.
Some of them are.  Both 'perfect' and perfectly 'solved'.
Is there any 'opening' that's 'Perfect' ?
Yes.
g4 e5 f4 - now how about Qh4# ...   Checkmate.
Looks kind of 'Perfect' to me. 

#990
There is some misunderstanding:
no improvement for white means: no improvement at any of the white moves. 
In the game Carlsen-Nepo, they both followed their engine preparation and then landed in a forced 3-fold repetition. I did not find any white move to blame.

Hypothetically - if somebody ever proved that chess is always a draw with best play by both sides - would that mean that chess is then 'solved'?
Related:  If chess is thoroughly 'solved' would it then be known as to whether its 'always a draw' with best play?
No.  Doesn't follow.  Some white first moves might force a win for white - or allow Black to win.  Some white first moves might allow a forced draw for either side.

@tygxc

 Oh, so you actually mean the best possible move played by the player at each position in the game? But then again, you don't know if every move has been perfect until chess has been solved and we have all the positions that will force a draw.

 I mean, you an engine may give you a line at depth X but unless you have all the positions from move 1 to move N for each player with best play for each move, you can't actually confirm it's been "best possible play" and "no improvement for white" in each move from move 1 to move N. 

 Just 1 small deviation from the correct solutions would not make it a perfect game, so we can't know it's a perfect game. 

 As I said, Im leaning towards NO, that game between Nepo Carlsen is probably not a perfect game.

#994
I wrote: "This is probably also a perfect game"
The probably means: I do not know, but I think so.
They both followed their analysis and played quickly.
Then they reached a forced 3-fold repetition.
What white move would you think can be improved on?
It is not necessary to first solve chess and then verify a game is perfect.
The other way around: a set of perfect games solves chess.

People who do a lot of chess tactics puzzles might better understand that things aren't what they seem to be.
'Best play' is often arbitrarily and invalidly decided on.  
'Shortcuts' for same are so often invalid - whether its a computer doing it - or a person.
Having a computer do invalid shortcuts partly defeats the purpose of the computer.

 Let me disagree on "It is not necessary to first solve chess and then verify a game is perfect."

 The only way to know if any given move can be improved on is by solving chess so that we don't have to rely on an arbitrary "depth N" engine analysis to judge whether the move is the best or not. Who's to say that "depth N+1" is not going to yield a BETTER move for white (or black) and change the line in its entirety? And then "Depth N+2" may change it one more time? You can easily notice this analysing a game at very low depths with stockfish, how it rapidly discards lines as the depth number goes up. 

 The only way to actually KNOW every move from move 1 till the last were the very best by both players is to first solve it, have a position-space of all the drawish games from move 1 with best moves for each move and each player, and then see if the game falls within that set.

 So going back to my first reply to you, home computers do not have enough processing power to solve chess - there's so many positions they can evaluate in 3 days if they work 24/7 - so any of those correspondence chess games is unlikely to be examples of perfect games.

#997
Carlsen, Caruana, Nepo did not use home computers, but cloud engines.
A cloud engine achieves 10^9 nodes/s, that is 1000 times faster than a desktop.
The last world championship matches make believe that the Petrov draws for black.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937789
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937912

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2127155

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2135056

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2136005 
Carlsen varied variations, as none got him anywhere.
The only win was a blunder by Nepo in a drawn position.

Post #998 would suggest that e4 e5 Nf3 allows a forced 'draw' by black replying Nf6 for his second move.  
'Make believe' ?  Yes - that does sound like 'make believe'.

If Carlsen plays the Petroff against Stockfish 14 he will almost certainly lose.

according to me chess will never be solved by any supercomputer because there are 10^120 games possiable (approx) it might take some million years 

that's just my thought

Couldn't find 'FIDE' ratings for chess engines and supercomputers.
Maybe there is no such thing.
Carlsen is in the high 2800's it seems.  Might break 2900 someday?

But some engines/computers have an Elo rating.
I saw more than one over 3400.
Elo is the same as FIDE ?  Somehow I doubt that ...  but its a long time since I researched the rating systems.
But if the strongest computer chess is 500 points stronger than Carlsen - then maybe they could even spot him material !
Maybe that can be looked up too !  

World class players struggle against top engines with odds.

Apparently.  
Here's something from seven years ago.
In the last two games of the four - 
Nakamura was given a pawn and white - but apparently  still finished behind with 1.5 to 0.5 ...  same result in the first two - with no pawn.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-3634