3 ms·

You know the entire state of the chess board. You don’t know the entire state of your enemy forces. I’m both cases information could be said to be hidden by com

You know the entire state of the chess board. You don’t know the entire state of your enemy forces. I’m both cases information could be said to be hidden by complexity, but in the case of war information is also just plain hidden. Edit: it would be similar to your example of war if you e.g. couldn’t see their pieces or something that would cause information asymmetry. This would make the game very different so clearly the term of art _is_ useful and important.

thom 4y ago
I suppose my problem is that the term 'perfect information' doesn't really communicate anything really interesting about chess. Whereas the equally valid term of art 'incomplete information' actually does, because it captures the fact that you lack knowledge of your opponent's strategy, but nobody ever uses that term. Chess is like navigating a maze or a minefield, it's like stumbling into an ambush. It's much more like war than tic-tac-toe.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > I suppose my problem is that the term 'perfect information' doesn't really communicate anything really interesting about chess. Yes it _does_ communicate something interesting. It is a basic fact about the rules of play. If there were imperfect information, it would be a different game. Poker with perfect information means everyone plays with their cards up. It is a fundamentally different game. The fact that chess has perfect information for all parties is fundamental to the game.
  - thom 4y ago
    And while I understand that you’re coming at this from a technical standpoint and I can’t argue with the definition, I still think on a human level chess is more like poker than tic-tac-toe (because you’re spending a lot of time imperfectly filling in gaps in information about what your opponent could be up to), and so the category defined by this technical term isn’t so useful in a human conversation such as we’re having, with no prizes from technical correctness. I’m not really interested in repeatedly restating the definition, I’m saying it’s not a good signifier for the differences between chess and war. Maybe that’s not interesting to you, but it is to me as a player and designer of games! And on a deeper level I suppose I’m guilty of exactly the same thing because this is a thread about poetry anyway. :P
    - thom 4y ago
      Eh, no longer really enamoured by these thoughts, because that's really what's interesting about almost any game, but somehow I still bristle whenever people bring this up about chess.

thom 4y ago

I suppose my problem is that the term 'perfect information' doesn't really communicate anything really interesting about chess. Whereas the equally valid term of art 'incomplete information' actually does, because it captures the fact that you lack knowledge of your opponent's strategy, but nobody ever uses that term. Chess is like navigating a maze or a minefield, it's like stumbling into an ambush. It's much more like war than tic-tac-toe.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
> I suppose my problem is that the term 'perfect information' doesn't really communicate anything really interesting about chess. Yes it _does_ communicate something interesting. It is a basic fact about the rules of play. If there were imperfect information, it would be a different game. Poker with perfect information means everyone plays with their cards up. It is a fundamentally different game. The fact that chess has perfect information for all parties is fundamental to the game.
- thom 4y ago
  And while I understand that you’re coming at this from a technical standpoint and I can’t argue with the definition, I still think on a human level chess is more like poker than tic-tac-toe (because you’re spending a lot of time imperfectly filling in gaps in information about what your opponent could be up to), and so the category defined by this technical term isn’t so useful in a human conversation such as we’re having, with no prizes from technical correctness. I’m not really interested in repeatedly restating the definition, I’m saying it’s not a good signifier for the differences between chess and war. Maybe that’s not interesting to you, but it is to me as a player and designer of games! And on a deeper level I suppose I’m guilty of exactly the same thing because this is a thread about poetry anyway. :P
  - thom 4y ago
    Eh, no longer really enamoured by these thoughts, because that's really what's interesting about almost any game, but somehow I still bristle whenever people bring this up about chess.