I should have thought that any opposition to the premise that chess will never be solved must be based on the premise that chess is a game of perfect information or that it may be made into such by means of what seems like a minimum of processing the patterns which we see and yet do not fully understand!
It's not a "premise" that chess is a game of perfect information, it's a fact easily proven from the axioms, using the correct definition of the term.
And no "I want to use the standard term to mean some other thing" is not a worthwhile input.
Yeah almost anything can indeed be done, I'm aware of that. Great point by you as always. I'm sure youd have a good time summarizing it to every new comer that stumbles into the thread.