Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

I concur

Seems to me a definition that would exclude all games that involve any action at all that is not forced on the players would not be terribly useful. Presumably @Optimissed disagrees.

Perfect information was explained to @Optimissed well before he was muted by chess.com for three months at the end of last year.

[General aside: still catching up with some posts, but no reason to take these later replies as re-opening something if the person I am replying to considers it closed.]

I disagree. Many innovators would prefer to bring something to the table first in order to get something going... "I was interesting in this, so I did that, and the results were this, has anyone tried anything similar, what did you find?", etc..

I am glad to see Optimissed finding new friends that he can agree and get along with, and whose arguments he can relate to.

By very many, you mean a handful of posters that are not really gone because they always pop back up like bad pennies. Case in point, somebody talking about daffodil harvests today on another thread.

You're a bit gullible when your ego is being catered to. There is no "nationally known US politician" among your friends here. They claimed to be a US ambassador appointed by Eisenhower. The reality is quite a bit more mundane:

https://culturalvistas.org/our-programs/professional-study-tours/citizen-ambassadors-program

The Citizen Ambassador Program was first established in 1956 by the U.S. State Department during the Eisenhower Administration. Its purpose was to promote exchanges between private citizens of different cultures, allowing them to gain a better understanding of each other and their professions through the sharing of ideas and experiences.

So, essentially, the business equivalent of a foreign exchange student. An "ambassador" in name only, not appointed by Eisenhower but merely participating in a basic program with very low barrier to entry, established during the Eisenhower administration.

Pfren in all his years here never showed a single sign of your narrative and was definitely not the type of person that liked people associating themselves with him purely for gaining extra credibility. Of course, we can't ask him now, and he won't show up to disabuse you here, and that's probably the key to your chosen reference in this case.

Don't know which doctor you are referring to, but chances are good that is also bunk.

You catch on quickly Alyra.
Opto's manners are terrible and then he complains about the results he gets.
"he’s either messing around or trying to sound deep"
Try both. Some of the kids believe him.
And some of the people who like to spout disinformation play along with him.

You've probably jaundiced her view.

You don't say what you mean by "the strongest sense". All previous actions known to all players at any stage? That would apply to flip flop flue bang (aka rock-paper-scissors I think).

I agree the relevance is very minor. I don't see that perfect information in any sense is a prerequisite for solvability in any sense. For example with a suitably amended set of chess rules both chess and Kriegspiel would be solved in each of the senses defined in the Wikipaedia article, though Kriegspiel would not match any of the definitions of a game of perfect information.

(Although the games would be solved according to the definitions, it is possible that they would not be considered solved (by person or persons unknown) or it would be unknown whether they would be considered by the same to be solved according to the later paragraph:

Given the rules of any two-person game with a finite number of positions, one can always trivially construct a minimax algorithm that would exhaustively traverse the game tree. However, since for many non-trivial games such an algorithm would require an infeasible amount of time to generate a move in a given position, a game is not considered to be solved weakly or strongly unless the algorithm can be run by existing hardware in a reasonable time. ...

That would depend on what is meant by "a reasonable time" (how long is a piece of string?) and in the case of (amended) chess at least the lack of knowledge of how long a minimax algorithm would actually take translates to an uncertainty as to whether the relevant persons consider the game to be weakly or strongly solved. They would apparently accept it as an ultra-weak solution.)

Don't know, we haven't got around to solve that yet. Still doing chess...

At 16 Alyra is already demonstrating clearly more understanding than Opto is.
And very quickly too. WIth Opto complaining that he was talked back to.
But its mostly phony behaviour by Opto. That's the part that's usually missed.