Re: HOH \"outdated\"
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that it is true in theory and practice in Go, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe, and whatever else, that the game is of complete information. To claim otherwise is either wrong, or as in your case, abusing the nomenclature. That's all I'm saying, and being a theorist in the field, I don't like seeing people abuse the notation...again, not saying your point is wrong, it's just that your wording is poor.
[/ QUOTE ]
We constantly have to invent new wording to get new ideas across. Let me give you an example. If you were a "theorist in the field" of zoology, you'd know that balsa wood is a hardwood and pine is a softwood. But that's pretty misleading isn't it? So I would tell most people that balsa is a soft wood and you would correct me and say no, it must be a hardwood.
Yes, I know chess is a game of complete information. But in practice that's pretty misleading. In practice it's a game of incomplete information. This is no more wrong in my view than saying that balsa is a hardwood and balsa is a soft wood in practice.
|