Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

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.

You actually have a problem that you may not be aware of, which is that you dont understand the arguments from both sides

I'm actually all for challenging stardard terms. If they dont function logically in a relevant context they can be challenged.... However, I'm not saying thats the case here yet.

This leads me to ask Optimissed the following question:

If we want to change the definition so that a game where we havent been able to access all the information yet isnt a game of perfect information... When approaching a task of solving a game, how do we distinguish games where the its impossible to achieve a solution that guarantees a theoretical result (poker) and a game where its theoretically possible given solved state, chess? If both are games of imperfect information, how do we determine what the solution could offer us... Does the question make sense?

Yes Optimissed, the discussion here is based on chess being theoretically solvable. If we were to define it as a game of imperfect information are we saying that we were wrong to think its solvable in theory?

No, you are not in a position to impose your poor understanding on the entire field of game theory.

To help you get started understanding I can express the definition in a simple way. Do say if there is anything unclear to you.

A game of perfect information between two players is characterised by these things:

• at each step it has a state visible to both players
• some of the states terminate the game with a specified value for each player
• players move alternately until the game reaches a termination state (or, for practicality, players agree on the result)
• a move is determined by the state it leaves the other player with
• the states determine the moves available

...not me.

but i do feel like chess is out there for doG & e/o to view right ? each & every move. perfect info ? ...seems like it to me. forget all the defs. theres no interpretation of the move (sans e.p.). they say poker is way less a game & way more a negotiation. cuz not all is known as the hand goes forward.

did MA say let them eat cake or let them eat candy ? (or neither !) ...seems like semantic thingy on deffing GOPI.

You're a pompous limey. No wonder Russia wants to nuke the UK

A good explanation of why chess can't be solved with "mathematical rules" is look at how many puzzles can't be solved by engines because of how bizarre, subtle, and/or counterintuitive the solution is. Just look in the "mates difficult for engines" and/or "too difficult for computers" threads for examples. How could any mathematical representation account for them given how obscure the moves are that could only be realized through logical reasoning/stumbling upon the solution randomly through a pruning search?

I don't see this as a serious argument because the engines we have today can't be used to determine what is doable. They can struggle with some positions that are simple for humans. It's a given that some positions are much more complex and maybe not feasible for mathematical rules.. However, the process being a hybrid of brute force and AI abstracting rules based on that data is better than only brute force and again, we don't know whats doable because we dont have the tools.

From Wikipaedia.

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.

I'm no expert on game theory, so, it being from Wikipaedia, I can't say whether that is true. But all versions of chess I've come across allow for simultaneous moves, if you count a move as any action under the rules that changes the game state, e.g. simultaneous resignations. Computer versions will serialise all such actions, so, for example producing a win for one (random) player, rather than a win for both as under FIDE rules, in the example quoted.

(Actually FIDE may be moving slowly towards specifying a zero sum game (but not a sequential game). From the laws 2018:

5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediatelyends the game.

From the laws 2023:

5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw.

So now if you step into a dead position simultaneously with resigning the game is drawn, but nobody wins. If the players simultaneously resign in a position which is neither dead nor half dead both now lose instead of both winning as before.)

Where do we find the most restrictive definition (you give no link). Does it count "moves" as changes in game state or apply only to moves of some defined "pieces"? Presumably it applies only to two player games?

You can say there is an "obvious comparison" between jelly beans and tigers, but that does not mean there is.

That is two worthless, vacuous and erroneous posts.

To contrast, let me reiterate that chess satisfies the original, most restrictive definition of a game of perfect information (and all broader - i.e. weaker - definitions that encompass more varied games). And the only relationship of Enigma to chess is that some human beings who played chess were involved in cracking codes. I suppose you could add that both cracking codes and solving chess require a lot of brute force computation (but that a very weak connection, since the computations involved are quite different).