171–180 of 243 posts
Next up: Basilisk Chess Two players compete to win a chess game, where you only win if you work tirelessly to play perfect chess moves on every turn (as determined by benevolent artificial superintelligence). The loser is tortured in a virtual reality simulation.
If I refuse to play am I also tortured
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…
Ok, I take your protected queen with my queen and veto you taking mine on next move.
How did we get here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True you could have a ghost piece of the computers move and you just can’t move there.
I'm not a chess player but wouldn't that give too much information away? Not knowing what is the "best" move is part of the game, isn't it?
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…
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…
We can argue if a forced move ends the game, or just allows it.
This would (more) move the game forwards in the basic historical rule-set.
- giz
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the idea of not being allowed to use any move the engine would recommend. Blunders only.
That is quite similar to how I play now anyway, so I might be really good at this version.
My game quality is measured in how many times I say "fuck!" right after moving a piece. A very good game for me is about a two-fuck game.