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

solved by computers: probably, with the exponential growth of computer power chess can be "solved".
solved by humans: no shot, way too many positions

There are many more isosceles triangles in a Euclidean plane than there are chess positions. Didn't stop Euclid from proving the base angles in each are equal.

And he didn't use his abacus at all.

However, the definition of an isosceles triangle is a triangle in which the base angles are equal. Therefore there isn't a proof because no proof is required.

It may be solved by humans but, as I've explained a number of times already, a brute force computer search would be insufficient as a proof because the problem is so complex that there could be no proof that the computer didn't miss something or there wasn't a glitch. Even repetitive correct results wouldn't suffice because it would have to be proven that the programming was correct. Therefore, no such proof is possible because it would be infinitely iterative.

"Isosceles" means equal legs, not equal angles. You should try getting to grips with elementary mathematics sometime.

(You could start with Euclid book 1. You need only get as far as Proposition 5. to straighten yourself out on the point in question. In fact, with a little nous, Proposition 4. should be sufficient - but that might be asking too much.)

Equal legs is the literal meaning and equal legs is synonymous with equal angles and that's so obvious that a proof is trivial.

It might equally have been named an isogonceles triangle, meaning equal angles and legs; but that would have been clumsy. Similarly, it might have been named an "equigonal triangle" or whatever; but there would have been less distinction between that and an equilateral triangle.

You shouldn't have laboured your point because it wasn't a strong argument.

It was you who initially laboured the point.

Euclid thought it necessary to prove, as have generations of maths teachers. Though a proof is relatively trivial, I wouldn't, from inspection of the "proofs" you have previously posted and looking at your comments on defining "equigonal" triangles etc., have much confidence in your being capable of producing one. 

Euclid lived in primitive times, when demonstrating even very simple and obvious proofs would be helpful in educating people. Of course, your m.o. when arguing here is to invent things and try to pass them off as facts. Not really very honest, are you.

In the case of an isosceles triangle, no proof that base angles are equal is necessary, because it's obvious and such a proof is only useful in demonstrating how to construct formal proofs. 

So-called competition rules are completely irrelevant to local league chess, which is still a formal competition.

Good. :fist

People haven't changed. Simple and obvious proofs are still helpful in educating people.

No doubt then, as now, the unfortunate fact was and is that some people are just ineducable.

No

Euclid was one of the smartest people ever to live. He got it so right, his books were used for teaching until modern history. To me this elevates him above other great minds of his period, most of whom made errors by faults in their thinking. (Although, having said that, I am not sure I can find fault with Eratosthenes, another hero of mine).

Euclid understood something that Optimissed appears to have forgotten - that proving intuitively "obvious" things is worthwhile. Of course, he went on to build on this by proving a lot of things few would find obvious even now: his work was quite extensive.

One interesting example of why Euclid was right was where he didn't get to the final answer. He thought the parallel postulate might be unnecessary, as the ways in which two lines could intersect in real space was "obvious". He tried to prove this from his other axioms but never could achieve this and reluctantly accepted the need for the parallel postulate as an axiom. It was not until the 19th century that the relevance of this was realised when mathematicians discovered that two alternatives to the parallel postulate resulted in spherical and hyperbolic geometry to complement the "euclidean" geometry of Euclid. And a few decades later the latter geometry was found to (literally) everyone's surprise to be the one that described space-time locally.

Taking the parallel postulate to be "obvious" without accepting it as an independent axiom would have blocked this advance forever. The non-trivialiality of this is indicated by the more than 2000 years before someone built on this insight!

I've noticed.

Some were too busy building silly pyramids and the likes.

Why would people spend six thousand years or more trying to solve a game that hadn't been invented?

false i just know don't ask why

No, not only that. Also because "obvious" things are not always true, as I explained with a crucial example.

This is a good example of this thread being pointless because most of the time I can't figure out what definitions of "solved" people are working with. I have no idea of how to define it to have this post make any sense to me. 

It's defined like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game