3 ms·
> I suppose my problem is that the term 'perfect information' doesn't really communicate anything really interesting about chess. Yes it _does_ communicate som
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoEh, 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.