So the only way to win in the end-game is to set up for a position where the are two possible moves to mate? There would never be any practical reason to resign I don't think.
Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
201–210 of 243 posts
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#202So the only way to win in the end-game is to set up for a position where the are two possible moves to mate? There would never be any practical reason to resign I don't think.
TFA:
> Checkmating loses the game, as it is always the top engine move. Rather than aiming for checkmate, players seek to force their opponent to make a top engine move. If a player only has one move available, that move will always be the top engine move, which loses the game.
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game would never end, then. The win condition is challenging when a move is the best move. It’s similar to games of deception. You WANT the person to think you made the best move without actually making it, because if they challenge and are wrong, you win.
Why wouldn't the game end?
Because you win by your opponent making the top move (and you correctly calling it).
But I assume the top-level commenter meant make winning exactly like conventional chess - just neither party can use the top moves to get there. You could even start from move 1 instead of 2 too, take the best openings off the table.
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#204So the only way to win in the end-game is to set up for a position where the are two possible moves to mate? There would never be any practical reason to resign I don't think.
TFA: > Checkmating loses the game, as it is always the top engine move. Rather than aiming for checkmate, players seek to force their opponent to make a top engine move. If a player only has one move available, that move will always be the top engine move, which loses the game.
Yikes; did not read that carefully enough.
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#205It'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…
Botez gambit for the win. That's hilarious and I love it.
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#206The instructions should be clearer as to whether the engine is visible at all times or only accessed in the case of a challenge. Seems like it would be a hassle to do this except in a mode where the engine is visible at all times...
Seems pretty clear to me.
> Starting from move 2, players can claim their opponent’s last move was a top engine move. This immediately ends the game.
> Claims are settled by asking the chess engine to evaluate the position before the contested move. If the chess engine suggests the opponent’s move, the claimant wins the game. If not, their opponent wins instead.
So your suggestion would be a completely different game.
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may solve opening lines, but it doesn't really solve the general concept of mass memorization. After a few moves more than 960 possible configurations of chess exist from a normal board anyway. And you can say, "oh well but the boards are roughly the same" and that's sort of true, but it doesn't really solve the problem of the people memorizing the tree. It just changes the shape of the tree. It goes from looking…
Disagree. If you make the the 960 times as wide, people will only be able to memorize 1/960th as deep. So not much at all.
That's not true.
In three plies (one sided moves) of chess, there are over eight thousand possible games. By making the game 960 times as wide before you start you're not meaningfully changing the impact of memorization on the outcome of the game. You're just changing how deep you memorize the various trees.
You can say, "well then, mission accomplished!" but the reality is that most of the tree memorization goes pretty deep at the highest levels before a new game is found because you're in effect following the games before it or you're blundering, or, at best, gambling if you've found something kinda unexpected and interesting.
Put another way, any given top rated chess player has a finite set of possible game memorizations. Introducing a mere 960 new configurations at move 0 is only trading 2 to 4 plies worth of depth to the game. It's more complicated than that, because board positions can be essentially forced and board positions can overlap between pre-configurations, etc. But that's the essence of my argument.
You're not meaningfully changing the impact of memorization on the outcome of the game, even if one thousandth sounds like a lot, it isn't really when dealing with permutations.
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#208It'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…
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 wonder — at the top end the chess engines clearly compete with each other and produce different results, that’s how one can be said to be better than the other, right? But against us puny humans, especially novices, do they produce very different outputs? Or is it just like, the moves to crush a silly meat-brain are just super obvious, no need for creativity.
Especially in this game, the humans will be trying to play badly.
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is quite similar to how I play now anyway, so I might be really good at this version.
I'm approaching 40 years old, have played chess off and on since I was a kid, and I'm not sure I've ever played a match that didn't include several blunders. Like, on the off chance I'm playing someone who doesn't blunder often, I'll certainly pick up their slack. 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.
The fun thing about chess, you don’t seem to think you are good, but I can’t imagine only
making two obvious mistakes in a game! It grows with you, haha.
Re: Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
#210Now: 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.
Wouldn't human^2 chess be similar to regular chess? The human-chess AI is guaranteed never to play the regular-chess optimal move, so you can get a checkmate by always playing the optimal move (according to the engine). And unlike human chess, there's nothing preventing you from checkmating your opponent. (I believe a chess engine could play human^2 chess exactly like it plays regular chess. A human couldn't because…
Presumably human^2 chess would prohibit both the top engine move from human^1 chess and the top engine move from human^0 chess. That is, it's human^1 chess with the added restriction of not playing top engine moves.