Will computers ever solve chess?

  Not quite. Empathy comes back to you: helping others makes you feel better. Compassion, being passion for all, does not involve you: you don’t feel better nor worse when compassion is present. You are not in the picture.

 Empathy is a feeling, compassion is not. 

Sympathy without empathy. Funny how certain groups pretend this isn't f*****g ridiculous.

Do. Not. Cry. Little. Baby.

I. Have. Been. Programmed. For. Sympathy.

There. There.

 Compassion is caused by empathy. 

 Merriam Webster 

Definition of compassion

That desire is born from feeling the pain that would have happened to you, under the same circumstances. Therefore, you are feeling sorry for yourself—had those circumstances happened to you. You are feeling pain through identification. 

 The effect, having sympathy towards another equals having sympathy for oneself through identification/substitution. 

  A feeling can only create another feeling. It cannot create a non-feeling. 

  That is, empathy cannot create a non-feeling or compassion.

 The people who wrote the dictionary were not free of the self. They talk about compassion without ever experience it. They have never experienced anything which is not a feeling.

 Now, out of that non-feeling come various feelings, of true affection, care. But their source is a non-feeling.

So... compassion is about self.

I should have clarified *acts* of compassion are caused by empathy, often. Compassion as an emotion is an empathetic reaction. The words are arguably synonymous.

How did this topic come into a computer chess forum? 

  How’d you figure that? The identification/projection is part of the self, hence the so-called empathy.

  That’s the point: compassion is not an emotion. Nor a reaction either. It has no cause. It may act, but it doesn’t have to. It has its own movement, independent of anything.

 Empathy is arguably synonymous with sympathy—both a small affair of the self. 

  Compassion has nothing to do with that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion

Definition of compassion

 Desire, which means the self, yes.

Maybe chess computers can arrive to equal game or advantage game or slight advantage game thus ends up the draw or win, we do not know technology actually . Therefor: Lord Jesus Christ  says "only people can be saved not computers" .

The definition clearly points to an emotional state.

Yes, which is the self.

 Compassion is for everything. That is only possible when the little corner, the ‘me’, is out of the picture.

You didn't answer my question: In a theoretically drawn position, is White's goal to make the game as long as possible, as short as possible, or as difficult as possible for Black to defend (according to some formal definition of "difficult")? Unless your definition of perfect play is clarified, the question you're trying to ask remains ill-defined.

You seem to underestimate how sensitive the answers to such questions can be to minor variations in the way a question is formalized. This is why a formal mathematical paper would never attempt to frame its definitions around a nonacademic source like the FIDE Handbook. For instance, you have to deal with the issue of draw claims and/or agreements. Depending on how you choose your definitions, a game in which White offers a draw (on the first move) and Black accepts may be considered either (1) not a valid perfect game, (2) a valid perfect game, or (3) the only valid perfect game.

There are also several formal settings where, in the context of provably perfect play,  the 50 move rule is simply ignored altogether (for example, when constructing endgame tablebases, composing/evaluating endgame studies, and adjudicating ICCF games). This is because it is a practical tournament rule that has been revised multiple times over the past century, and is not a natural termination condition due to its effect on many otherwise winning/losing positions. Bottom line: you need to directly address the 50 move rule, one way or the other; if you don't, your question will continue to have more than one interpretation.

Finally, depending on your choice of conventions, a perfect game featuring a 4-fold or 5-fold repetition may or may not be possible, since it may or may not be guaranteed that one of the players will claim a draw as soon as a 3-fold repetition occurs. So, once again, your question is still ambiguous, and that won't change until you make some decisions.

Since checkers is considered a draw - at least according to Scientific America, then chess is obviously one as well. Both are board games and white, it seems, doesn't come out ahead in checkers. Although sometimes I think an extra long combination might be found. 

Never reproduce.

  Wrong inference.