141–150 of 243 posts
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title "Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden" kinda suggests that the top move just isn't available to the player. However, the thought you had, and similar ones, are very much the intentional side-effect of the rules. The only way to win the game, as stated, is forcing your opponent to make the top engine move. Or, of course, correctly claim that your opponent made such a…
I'd also be interested in a variant where the engine-recommended move is displayed to the players. It would take out the uncertainty of whether a move is illegal, but would allow for different win conditions (e.g. approach checkmate without ever using an optimal move).
A further variant for fairness purposes: let each player bring their preferred chess engine, instead of arguing about the choice of only one; and have each player run both engines for mutual anti-cheating verification. Then either the two engines agree on the best move (likely case if they are both strong) or all moves that either engine considers better than the other engine's best move (at least 2, usually not too many) can be interdicted.
It's a cool concept but the first naive thought that comes to mind for me is that white could just easily dominate by taking advantage of the fact that taking a queen is almost always the top engine move. So just by maintaining relative king safety on white's side, you just open your queen early and make sure that every move there onwards hangs your queen in some fashion. It's very easy to hang a queen. You just have…
e4, Qf3, Qxf7 looks menacing
Edit: I didn't read the fine print. First moves are exempt.
It's a cool concept but the first naive thought that comes to mind for me is that white could just easily dominate by taking advantage of the fact that taking a queen is almost always the top engine move. So just by maintaining relative king safety on white's side, you just open your queen early and make sure that every move there onwards hangs your queen in some fashion. It's very easy to hang a queen. You just have…
You could have two engines: a strong engine and a weak engine. If the weak engine suggests a move then it's allowed. But if the strong engines suggests a different move than it's forbidden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forced mates are generally scored with the number of moves to mate, e.g. "M2"
So you can start down a sequence that gives check-mate, but once it is the shortest sequence to check-mate, you have to abandon the check-mate.
Is there a standard evaluation function in chess engines?