Is it true about Black?

I've been told that at the epitome of skill, Black can only hope to draw against White. So does this mean that all wins as Black are technically flukes?

No.

I think the idea is that chess must theoratically be a forced draw by black, if played perfectly by two sides, white being the "attacker". like a drawn white pawn-up endgame, if you see what I mean. so if black loses, it's a little less surprising.

by the way, in opening theory, good moves for black are suggested by the terms "...and black equalizes", and for white, "white keeps the slight edge".

While the game is probably theoretically a draw, white normally takes the opening advantage which means "better chances" / "easier play", but an advantage does not always mean it's a theoretical win (I'd say it's more often the other way around).

Originally posted by Golub
... an advantage does not always mean it's a theoretical win ...

If you're looking at black as a defense, it's a veto. It only takes one bad move on your opponent's part to put black on the offense. All of the sudden, the game changes.

There is no "perfect" play in chess. Every move has some sort of setback or at least every 1-3 moves.

Originally posted by slickhare
I've been told that at the epitome of skill, Black can only hope to draw against White. So does this mean that all wins as Black are technically flukes?

Every decisive game in chess history that reached an "over-the-board" conclusion (e.g. the loss wasn't the result of a time forfiet or something like that unrelated to the position on the board)had at least one error by the loser. As GM Andrew Soltis once wrote, "Chess is not a game of good moves and better moves, it is a game of bad moves and worse moves." The point of Soltis' remark is that bad moves hurt you more than good moves help you. The only way for White to get a forced "mate in six" is for Black to make an error.