True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

I don't believe in altruism.

Egg, clearly -- dinosaurs pre-date chickens and were egg-born.

There is no begininng to a circle.

Yes, true, and it would be relevant if we were talking about a circle....

I disagree. There are an infinite number of beginnings to a circle.

You are discussing the circle of life, egg -> chicken -> egg ->chicken

That's not a circle, it's a very long line segment with repeated features.

Who says we have to use game theory standards to know chess is a draw?

We use circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that with best play on both sides chess is a draw.

There is no evidence at all that anyone has ever even approached "best play."

Chess will be solved as soon as we get quantum computers. But then everyone will divert into some variant probably Fischer's Random or Capablanca's variant.

Actually there have been millions of perfect games already played.

But regardless of that, why must we use game theory to decide?

As I said the overwhelming evidence is that chess is a draw with perfect play.

Complete nonsense. A perfect game means every single move was the best possible. We have no means to absolutely determine whether a move is the best possible unless it is proven to lead to a forced mate. 

Please post one of these games and the proof that it is perfect play. 

A perfect game does not mean every single move is the best possible.

Why? Because in many positions there are several moves which are totally equally good.

Example:

there are thousands of different ways both sides can play moves and there is no one best move.  In most postions in the early opening there is more than one best move.

A perfect game is a game where neither side makes a mistake.

I think you have a different definition of "perfect" than the rest of us.

There are several definitions of a perfect move or a perfect game.

In the definition by shock there would be trillions of ways to have a perfect game.

If the best move is the one which would be most effective in the long run then you would have to say the Blackmar Diemer Gambit early moves are perfect as they are very effective against most players.

The problem is that against strong players that gambit loses and has far from what most would say are perfect moves.

Computers/chess engines do make mistakes. Not so often but they do make mistakes.  They do not make tactical mistakes but can make a mistake in strategy.  I could post a game showing this.

Also, computers while making one move at a time will consider other moves to be equally good.  My last diagram shows this.  Thus you can give the computer a position and it will evaluate maybe 6 different moves as equal to each other and best play.

Thus, if  you go by the definition that perfect play is like what computers do--you still have trillions of perfect games.

Two grandmasters play for a draw in the last round of a tournament because they will tie for first with a draw and are afraid to play for a win.

[this happened in the recent World Open]

So [this is just an example] they play  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. Nc3  Nf6 and then agree to a draw.  They have played a perfect game and have made no mistakes and the game would end in a draw with best play by both sides. 

You can't know that they played a perfect game -- one of the player's may well have had a winning position after that sequence and erroneously agreed to a draw.

Even if they agreed to a draw right at the starting position, if the solution to chess is that there is in fact a forced win for white, agreeing to the draw was an imperfect move for white.

Until there is at least an ultra-weak solution, none of this is truly knowable.

Do you have a cite for that?