[zwischenzug]

The original quote was:

"Where it might frustrate a chess player, is that chess lacks an element of imperfect information."

Any chess player worth their salt deals with imperfect information, and has to manage risk, make kludges, pick imperfect paths, deal with the clock etc etc.

[couchand]

Right, however none of that has to do with perfect/imperfect information.

To quote Wikipedia: "In game theory, an extensive-form game has perfect information if each player, when making any decision, is perfectly informed of all the events that have previously occurred."

This is a technical designation, it has nothing to do with the future, only the past and current state.

Yes, to be a good chess player you need to be able to evaluate your opponent and make subjective determinations. Yes, your strategy is probably imperfect. But the fact remains that you can see the entirety of the game board and you can write down the history of moves, so you have perfect information.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information

[zwischenzug]

My point is in the context of a discussion about analogies about chess and software dev - if you're good at one are you good at the other etc?

In this context the fact that chess has perfect information in a technical sense is irrelevant, since chess as played is so much more than a game about digital information.