> "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify an

> "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it." > Since we can define an order and enumerate all possible gameplays (not just states -- all possible gameplays) from 1 to however many possible games there are, the game is only 1D. This argument only makes sense if you stop reading the wikipedia page after the first sentence. The rest of the page talks about coordinates being properties that can change independently of other properties of the system, and other things that contradict what you're arguing. E.g.: > 1. You can reduce the board to 1D (line all fields one after another, preserving their names, but giving them order that will let you describe position of a piece with a single number). A mapping like that would be a bijection of a chessboard, but would not be homeomorphic to one. That is, points that are adjacent in one mapping can be distant in the other, so there's no reason to assume they have the same dimensionality. (To the extent that a set of discrete points has dimensionality, anyway.)