Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
asvarga.github.io
Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#2Interesting to read the various[1,2] discussions on this chess variant
1 - http://www.hexenspiel.de/engl/synchronous-chess/ 2 - https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/synchronous-chess
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#3"Players enter a boxing ring and fight for the square." - I LOLed :) Great stuff!
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#4Successful moves don’t always commute. Black has just moved his pawn from g7 to g5. White submits what he thinks is an en passant capture, fxg6. Black submits a knight move, Ng6. One order removes a Black pawn, the other a Black knight.
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#5Successful moves don’t always commute. Black has just moved his pawn from g7 to g5. White submits what he thinks is an en passant capture, fxg6. Black submits a knight move, Ng6. One order removes a Black pawn, the other a Black knight.
This interested me enough to convince me to click through to the article itself. Is your observation allayed by this rule?
> Rule 2: a. Moves are tried in both orders, and only moves that are legal in both orders are merged. b. If both moves are legal in both orders but a different game state is reached in each order, neither move is merged.
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#6Successful moves don’t always commute. Black has just moved his pawn from g7 to g5. White submits what he thinks is an en passant capture, fxg6. Black submits a knight move, Ng6. One order removes a Black pawn, the other a Black knight.
Apparently you can notate "fxg6" as "fxg6 e.p.", so enforcing that would fix this?
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#7Successful moves don’t always commute. Black has just moved his pawn from g7 to g5. White submits what he thinks is an en passant capture, fxg6. Black submits a knight move, Ng6. One order removes a Black pawn, the other a Black knight.
This interested me enough to convince me to click through to the article itself. Is your observation allayed by this rule? > Rule 2: a. Moves are tried in both orders, and only moves that are legal in both orders are merged. b. If both moves are legal in both orders but a different game state is reached in each order, neither move is merged.
GP is in response to
> All of these scenarios illustrate rule 2a. Rule 2b is in fact irrelevant for chess, because successful moves always commute.
in the article.
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#8"Players enter a boxing ring and fight for the square." - I LOLed :) Great stuff!
For anyone unaware, this is a real thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#9When we consider sets of rules that show emergent properties,very small details like the conflict resolutions discussed here can have a tremendous impact on how the general strategies would pan out at high level play. That really makes me think of how rules for "game-of-life" type of cellular automata rules can be designed.
Small tweaks decide if the automata has a trivial computational power or is Turing-complete. Within the Turing-complete class there's a wide range of behaviors that can be obtained if we look at the structure that can spontaneously appear or statistical properties (e.g. what is the probability that the grid ends up entirely empty).
These observations are interesting as they give a test suite, or 'local properties', that can be run against any given simultaneous ruleset to characterize it. It would be fascinating to be able to run an AI to have an idea of how 'optimal strategies' (global properties) would look like in each case and see what relations we can draw from it.
(unfortunately I would assume it is still unreasonably costly to do something like this?)
Re: Fair Chess and Simultaneous Games
#10The proposed resolution scenarios on conflicting moves would make the "moves stuck" to often. My proposal would be to split move into two phases:
- simultaneous selection of moves (players select action at the same time)
- non-simultaneous execution of moves (with circular queue of order rotating each turn)
It's not a perfect solution, because in case of the conflict on the first move it gives advantage to first player in execution order, however many complex games (Chess, Go) allow to perform multiple moves before first conflicting move may happen. Some other (Tic Tac To, Othello) allow to make conflicting moves from start.
Keeping an eye on the execution order would give additional strategy layer for planning moves. I like also idea on resolution of conflict depending on the set "strength" of the piece, or annihilation of both when it's equal. This would also bring interesting complexity for decision making.