> How about the fact that a child can beat the best rock paper scissors player in the world in a game, but no human can beat the best chess engine? Same thing with poker, a novice could get lucky and win a hand against the best poker player.
How about that indeed. What are you trying to say here? The probability of a novice beating an expert doesn't tell us anything except how decisive skill is in a game. We can come up with skilful games where novices sometimes beat experts - in fact, that includes basically all games.
The point of something like an Elo rating is that on very rare occasions a novice will beat a grandmaster at chess. A human child may well beat the top chess AI on a long enough timescale, we really don't know how that will go. No reason it can't happen. They just have to get really lucky enough times in a row.
This has nothing to do with perfect or imperfect information. We can come up with a hidden information game where the odds of a novice beating an expert are approximately zero. And we can come up with a perfect information game where experts lose easily (for example, Go has a handicap system to equalise any skill gap).