Perhaps a perfect game would be for white to use it's slight opening advantage and play for a win, not making any mistakes. Black couldn't play a perfect game for a win because white would have to make a mistake first which would mean the game wasn't perfect. Maybe black's perfect game would be a draw.
If blacks perfect game is a draw, wouldn't that mean whites perfect game is a draw too? I'm assuming in all cases both sides play with no mistakes. If white starts out with an advantage and plays for a win and black can't stop it, then blacks perfect game is always a loss and never a draw.
But by the same token, the slight advantage at the beginning of the game for White ( which we don’t know for sure, but assume for a moment it’s a fact) may be insufficient for a win with best play by both sides, so that it ends in a draw no matter what.
Or there was no advantage at the start of the game for either side. It’s like the hyper-modern openings. It used to be believed that occupying the center was the best method to control it, and thus if you didn’t make any physical maneuvers to get there you’d be at a serious disadvantage.
But then came the understanding that you might as well control it from afar, like in KID, and there was no disadvantage by not physically having the army in the center, at least up to a point ( where Black starts moving in with either ...e5 or ...c5–or else he appears to lose).
So about the initial advantage, who really knows? It might be insufficient for a win or there may be no advantage at all and it ends up in a draw no matter what. Or if the initial position is a Zugzwang , the advantage is with Black and he wins with best play every single time.
This has been asked and talked about before. The answer is no.
Sadly yes. It may take some years, but the technology advances all the time, and if today's computer need 200 years to solve chess completley, in 10 years the will need 50 years, and maybe in some time solving games like chess will be something that every 8 years old kid can do with his personal computer at home.
But the answer is for sure, yes.
The problem with that logic is they currently need an absurd number like 10^50 years. So in the future, when it gets 100x faster, they'll only need 10^48 years, and in the very far far far future, only 10^40 years.
And then there's the impracticality (more like impossibility) of storing the solution.
e.g. a little quiz. If every position + its evaluation only took 1 bit of storage space, and every bit could be stored in the size of an atom, then how big would the storage device be?
A) Bigger than the moon.
B) Bigger than the sun.
C) More atoms than our solar system.
D) More atoms than our galaxy.
D)