3 ms·

I've never understood the 'imperfect information' thing when discussing chess. Chess _as played by people_ is full of hunches, uncertainty, prejudice, intimidat

I've never understood the 'imperfect information' thing when discussing chess. Chess _as played by people_ is full of hunches, uncertainty, prejudice, intimidation. Just look at how Kasparov played or Lasker, to see how important psychology is to chess. Or go down to Washington Square Gardens and play under the glare of dozens of people tutting at your every move. It's so much more than an abstract problem.

EvilPopsicleDog 11y ago
Yes, but the possible input to a chess game is strictly limited - one player cannot just change the way a piece moves or introduce a new piece, and thus, it is not taken into account in any strategy. These sorts things must be taken into account when programming.
- zwischenzug 11y ago
  This is how a chess player thinks. "Jesus, why did she play that? She must have seen something I've missed. Shit, if I had more time I'd be able to figure it out. Damnit, I'll just move my knight back, that way my king'll be safer. I'm sure there's a better move but I can't find it now, and I think my ass went to sleep." Change a few words, and it's pretty much a typical thought process when coding for me.
- bzalasky 11y ago
  Bughouse chess might fit the bill in this case. If you're not familiar, there are two boards with four players, with teammates playing opposite colors on each board. A captured piece on one board can be held in reserve by the teammate and played on any subsequent turn on any open square on the other board.
couchand 11y ago
Perfect information doesn't preclude the human element. It is a technical designation: each player has the entire knowledge of the game history up to and including the current state.
- zwischenzug 11y ago
  The original quote was: "Where it might frustrate a chess player, is that chess lacks an element of imperfect information." Any chess player worth their salt deals with imperfect information, and has to manage risk, make kludges, pick imperfect paths, deal with the clock etc etc.
  - couchand 11y ago
    Right, however none of that has to do with perfect/imperfect information. To quote Wikipedia: "In game theory, an extensive-form game has perfect information if each player, when making any decision, is perfectly informed of all the events that have previously occurred." This is a technical designation, it has nothing to do with the future, only the past and current state. Yes, to be a good chess player you need to be able to evaluate your opponent and make subjective determinations. Yes, your strategy is probably imperfect. But the fact remains that you can see the entirety of the game board and you can write down the history of moves, so you have perfect information. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
    - zwischenzug 11y ago
      My point is in the context of a discussion about analogies about chess and software dev - if you're good at one are you good at the other etc? In this context the fact that chess has perfect information in a technical sense is irrelevant, since chess as played is so much more than a game about digital information.

EvilPopsicleDog 11y ago

Yes, but the possible input to a chess game is strictly limited - one player cannot just change the way a piece moves or introduce a new piece, and thus, it is not taken into account in any strategy. These sorts things must be taken into account when programming.

zwischenzug 11y ago
This is how a chess player thinks. "Jesus, why did she play that? She must have seen something I've missed. Shit, if I had more time I'd be able to figure it out. Damnit, I'll just move my knight back, that way my king'll be safer. I'm sure there's a better move but I can't find it now, and I think my ass went to sleep." Change a few words, and it's pretty much a typical thought process when coding for me.
bzalasky 11y ago
Bughouse chess might fit the bill in this case. If you're not familiar, there are two boards with four players, with teammates playing opposite colors on each board. A captured piece on one board can be held in reserve by the teammate and played on any subsequent turn on any open square on the other board.

couchand 11y ago

Perfect information doesn't preclude the human element. It is a technical designation: each player has the entire knowledge of the game history up to and including the current state.

zwischenzug 11y ago
The original quote was: "Where it might frustrate a chess player, is that chess lacks an element of imperfect information." Any chess player worth their salt deals with imperfect information, and has to manage risk, make kludges, pick imperfect paths, deal with the clock etc etc.
- couchand 11y ago
  Right, however none of that has to do with perfect/imperfect information. To quote Wikipedia: "In game theory, an extensive-form game has perfect information if each player, when making any decision, is perfectly informed of all the events that have previously occurred." This is a technical designation, it has nothing to do with the future, only the past and current state. Yes, to be a good chess player you need to be able to evaluate your opponent and make subjective determinations. Yes, your strategy is probably imperfect. But the fact remains that you can see the entirety of the game board and you can write down the history of moves, so you have perfect information. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
  - zwischenzug 11y ago
    My point is in the context of a discussion about analogies about chess and software dev - if you're good at one are you good at the other etc? In this context the fact that chess has perfect information in a technical sense is irrelevant, since chess as played is so much more than a game about digital information.