31–40 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is explicitly addressed: When multiple moves have the top score, they are all top moves,
I wonder if a move that checkmates is scored lower than a move that checkmates and captures.
A simpler variation, that needs no computer to settle disputes, is Veto Chess. In Veto Chess you get one chance per game to veto your opponent's last move, and force them to make a different one. This shares with Human Chess the property that you can win by checking the king such that the response is forced. It may also serve as a handicap system in games between players of widely different strength, where only the w…
I expect that if I were offered a veto against a stronger player, I would not be skilled enough to spot which move to veto, and would probably end up hoarding my veto, like in video games where you have a great-but-rare ability that you keep perpetually in reserve. (“Too Awesome to Use” on TV Tropes. Link omitted - you’re welcome). But then, I’m a terrible chess player.
It would be pretty neat between players of similar skill level though, then I could see the hoarding taking place.
Now: Human Chess: a variant where you can't play what AI would play. Next: AI that can play Human Chess. After: Human^2 Chess: you can't play what the AI above would play. etc I wonder if this creates distinctly new games at each level, or if it's just nonsense one level down.
I loved the idea, but on further thought, the AI has a huge advantage in knowing what the engine move is, so they can never lose to incorrectly calling the last move and engine move.
"" If the chess engine suggests the opponent’s move, the claimant wins the game. If not, their opponent wins instead. "" How? Top engine move changes with evaluation time. Longer the wait, better the move.
You can make the engine choice deterministic just by choosing an evaluation time and settings.
Now: Human Chess: a variant where you can't play what AI would play. Next: AI that can play Human Chess. After: Human^2 Chess: you can't play what the AI above would play. etc I wonder if this creates distinctly new games at each level, or if it's just nonsense one level down.
A simpler variation, that needs no computer to settle disputes, is Veto Chess. In Veto Chess you get one chance per game to veto your opponent's last move, and force them to make a different one. This shares with Human Chess the property that you can win by checking the king such that the response is forced. It may also serve as a handicap system in games between players of widely different strength, where only the w…
I expect that if I were offered a veto against a stronger player, I would not be skilled enough to spot which move to veto, and would probably end up hoarding my veto, like in video games where you have a great-but-rare ability that you keep perpetually in reserve. (“Too Awesome to Use” on TV Tropes. Link omitted - you’re welcome). But then, I’m a terrible chess player.
As the saying goes, "the threat is stronger than the execution".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make the engine choice deterministic just by choosing an evaluation time and settings.
not quite deterministic when you consider multithreading and monte carlo search.
So you just choose in advance what settings to run with and the stopping condition. And then it doesn't matter that if you had run it with different settings, you may have gotten a different answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I loved the idea, but on further thought, the AI has a huge advantage in knowing what the engine move is, so they can never lose to incorrectly calling the last move and engine move.
Unless it was two different engines.
Now: Human Chess: a variant where you can't play what AI would play. Next: AI that can play Human Chess. After: Human^2 Chess: you can't play what the AI above would play. etc I wonder if this creates distinctly new games at each level, or if it's just nonsense one level down.
rinse and repeat that a few times, and the only remaining winning move will be not to play