Chess will never be solved, here's why

Ah, thank you, Optimissed, for bestowing upon me the knowledge that my 16-year-old brain is simply incapable of understanding much. Clearly, my ability to play chess well is just a happy accident, and any thoughts I have about AI, search engines, or, well, anything must be immediately disregarded.

But I appreciate your support—especially since you’ve already accepted that the world is doomed, but hey, I have to live in it, so best of luck to me! (Lol) Truly inspiring words of encouragement.

Oh wow, what an incredibly generous offer—you’re tired, so now the discussion is fair? How fortunate for me! I can only imagine how impossible it would be to keep up if you were well-rested.

And of course, anyone who agrees with me must not be all that bright—because clearly, intelligence is measured by how much someone disagrees with you. Solid logic.

Stop using logical fallacies on me, man

Aha, so now we're finally pretending to have an actual discussion?

Alright then—as I have already stated, chess is a game of perfect information because both players can see the entire board at all times, as well as every move that has been played. There is no hidden information, no secret hands like in poker, and no random elements like dice rolls. Every position is fully visible, and all past moves are known to both players.

So now we’ve moved on from actually discussing chess to an in-depth personality analysis of a person- fascinating! Clearly, the most important thing in a debate isn’t logic or evidence, but whether I fit neatly into the little character profile you’ve built in your head.

And of course, dismissing arguments as "pedantic" instead of addressing them isn’t dodging the point. I suppose next you’ll tell me another something that also proves I'm wrong?

Yes, you can use that information to make the best possible moves, but that doesn’t mean you can perfectly calculate every outcome—chess is far too complex for that. Perfect information simply means that nothing is hidden from either player; it doesn’t mean the game is solved or that players can instantly see the best move at all times. The difficulty comes from the sheer number of possible positions, not from a lack of information.

Now we're asking about being objective lol. Convenient.

lol

You definitely haven’t spent half this conversation dodging the real debate. I’ve already explained why chess is a perfect information game—both players have full visibility of the board and all past moves, with no hidden information or randomness. If you actually disagree, feel free to provide a real argument instead of just repeating that I “don’t understand.”

lol again! lol!

Bye

Lol

bro, you are sooo mad!

 Ah, so, It’s not that you’ve dodged every point I made—it’s just that I failed to grasp your deep, "superior" intelligence. My mistake for expecting an actual argument instead of superiority and personal attacks. 

Yes, it is amazing how many people fail to recognise that. It must be beyond almost all mere mortals to detect.

Oh, right—so because two things share a definition, they must be exactly the same? By that logic, a bicycle and a sports car are identical because both are “modes of transportation.” That’s not how definitions work. Lol

The difference between chess and tic-tac-toe isn’t whether they’re perfect information games—it’s their complexity. Tic-tac-toe is trivial because it has so few possible positions, while chess is vastly more complex. That doesn’t change the definition of perfect information; it just means some perfect information games are harder than others.

Also, my argument wasn’t “lost” in anything—you just ignored it. But sure, if dismissing an entire field of game theory makes you feel better, go for it.

Go for it. I felt mad over last night and simply wanted to use my sarcasm on someone

He said, quote: "The difference between chess and tic-tac-toe [snip]"...how can you read that and then misinterpret 5 minutes later?

The enigma code analogy doesn't hold up. Perhaps if the allies could have read the plain text of the unencrypted code, but still could not understand the complexity or context of the messages' content, it would be stronger...but as it is, it's just a bad analogy. People play chess every day without issue, and what arguably little of it they do understand, they understand plainly.

In any case, the analogy is beside the point. The definition of games of perfect information says nothing about a players ability to comprehend, only of having full access to the same information. In games like poker, there is genuine hidden information. In chess, the only unknown comes from the opponent's future choices, leading some posters to mistakenly conflate strategic uncertainty with a lack of perfect information.

The argument that chess cannot be understood and that this changes the definition falls apart. Does a person that initially learns Tic Tac Toe and does not yet understand how to force a draw change the fundamental nature of the game they are playing? They do not.

My quote (in yellow) was in response to @Elroch's

Try to get into your head the idea that being a game of perfect information is a precisely defined concept, easily shown to be satisfied by chess, checkers, tic-tac-toe, go, etc. Indeed, go and learn what the definition is.

addressed to @Optimissed. It should rather read, "... go and learn what the definitions are", if Wikipaedia is to be believed (regardless of the fact that the advice would be futile in either case). Or preferably provide an explicit definition.

You give what is possibly an intended definition by listing some attributes that apply to "chess", but do they?

You say,

Chess is also turn-based, which further contributes to its status as a perfect information game. Players move one after another rather than simultaneously. This ensures that before making a move, each player has full knowledge of the current board position and can plan accordingly. In contrast, simultaneous-action games like rock-paper-scissors involve a level of uncertainty, as players must make decisions without knowing what their opponent will choose.

Players move their pieces one after the other. They don't necessarily take turns altering the game state. In all versions of "chess" rules I've seen players are allowed to offer and accept draws or resign independently of the alternation of piece moves and these actions can be simultaneous with each other or with piece moves.

If a player offers a draw on his turn and then notices he has a mate in 1, he knows everything that has happened up to that point, but he doesn't know any more than if he's playing flip flop flue bang what will happen if he plays the mate. His opponent may choose to accept the draw at some point up to and including finishing the move or he may not.

The result if the two things occur simultaneously depends on what you mean by "chess" (you don't say). If it's FIDE rules the game is drawn and the player wins. If it's computer based the effective rules will not match those of FIDE; the actions will become serialised and the game is drawn or the player wins, but not both (though the players will not know which in advance).

This post will never be solved because its like politics and religion.

look at how many responses and its still the same rhetoric and worthless conjecture.