Philosophy Question about Chess

Chess is a game of perfect information, and we have engines that can tell us the objective best move in any given position - so why don't chess computers all just spit out one same single 'best' strategy of play for both sides? I.e the objective strongest play. Shouldn't there just be one objectively best play for either side from the start?

Sort of leads into to the question of 'is the game a draw or a forced win for white?' it just seems inconceivable to me that we haven't cracked this in this day and age with modern technology!

#1

"Chess is a game of perfect information" ++ Yes, that is true

"we have engines that can tell us the objective best move in any given position" ++ No

"why don't chess computers all just spit out one same single 'best' strategy"
++ because it takes supercomputers 5 years to calculate

"Shouldn't there just be one objectively best play for either side from the start?"
++ No, there are several objective best plays for both sides that lead to a draw

"is the game a draw or a forced win for white?" ++ Chess is draw

Chess is "big" and computers are "fast" but it's a matter of scale. A human is big to an ant, but a human is not big compared to the planet.

Computers are fast compared to most mundane tasks (like loading a webpage or doing simple math) but like the earth is larger than a human, chess has too many positions for a computer to calculate (@tygxc's fever dream of 5 years nonwithstanding)

I blame Chess.com for this common misconception, particularly their Game Analysis feature that proclaims certain moves as "best" just because an engine likes them. There's probably a whole generation of people who learned chess via Chess.com and hence mistakenly believe that engines already play perfect chess. Perhaps one day there will be a class action against Chess.com when all these users realise the advertised "best moves" are not necessarily the objective best!

Yes

"is the game a draw or a forced win for white?" ++ Chess is draw says  tyggy

Pl show your proof.

#6
It is true, but not yet formally proven.
Compelling evidence:
1) Expert opinions of Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Spassky, Fischer, Adorjan, Sveshnikov, Kasparov, Kramnik...
2) Human World Championship Matches: Caruana - Carlsen 12 draws in 12 games, Nepo - Carlsen 4 decisive games due to human error in otherwise drawn positions
3) International Correspondence Chess Federation World Championship 5 days/move, engines allowed: 9 decisive games in 136 games despite 7-men endgame table base win claims allowed that exceed 50 moves without capture or pawn move
4) AlphaZero autoplay 88.2% draws at 1s/move, 97.9% draws at 1 min/move, even if stalemate is a win
5) Top Chess Engine Championship superfinals 63% draw rate despite 50 slightly unbalanced openings imposed.

I got this,...

Hello

Another thread about a well-worn topic. Time to go rotate the tires.

It's like algebra. There's nothing new about it, but we have to keep teaching it because new students keep coming along.  The OP might be a high school kid who, given his level of knowledge, is asking a very good question, not realizing it's been asked and answered many times already. 

Now we need a philosophy question about tire rotation...

#10
"There are just so many possible combination of moves right?"
++ Chess has about 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions.