26 ms·

I mean the difference is that I can actually play (not only observe) chess with just 1D representation of the game. Whereas football requires you to act physica

I mean the difference is that I can actually play (not only observe) chess with just 1D representation of the game. Whereas football requires you to act physically in 3D space. But you are right, I would also consider "virtual football" e.g. simulated by a computer as 1D.

munk-a 6y ago
I disagree - you can play a game with the same rules as chess in 1D but you can't move your pawn forward on the board in 1D. Chess is a cerebral game so it's easier to abstract it down to entirely be about the will of the movements but those movements aren't committed (in a normal game of chess) until the pieces are actually moved. So I think you can tactically play football and chess equivalents in 1D, but the actual movements required to execute the game still require three dimensions and Chess remains a game that is pretty naturally aligned with the requirements of two dimensional space. This is very pedantic at this point but I think the naive and natural assumptions about game dimensionality are probably the most correct to stick with. They can be argued up and down (absolutely no game can actually be played in less dimensions than we exist in since we only exist in so many dimensions - we might not need to exercise them to play the game but a chess piece, a computer or any existing encoding of data that we have today requires representation in 3 (or however many you think we have) dimensions - similarly pretty much everything (everything, I think?) can be described in data that can be expressed linearly so all games and the entire world can be said to be 1D. I think the fair middle ground is to try and adhere to the meaningful definition of dimensions in the middle that actually lets us classify things differently instead of saying that everything in existence is both 1D and multi-dimensional.
- tutfbhuf 6y ago
  Hmm. okay I understand that you still disagree but I don't get your point. > So I think you can tactically play football and chess equivalents in 1D, but the actual movements required to execute the game still require three dimensions I don't know what you mean by tactically. I never played football in 1D in my life and I think no one ever has, except if you are referring to a computer game or computer simulation. But I have played blindfold games without a chessboard and without a computer. > but you can't move your pawn forward on the board in 1D you don't need a board to play chess. A chess board be it in 2D representation on a computer screen or in 3D in real life is just a optional representation of the chess game, but you don't need it. > a computer or any existing encoding of data that we have today requires representation in 3 (or however many you think we have) I think we most likely have (according to theories that are mathematically sound) four non-compact dimension and seven that are curled up, so 11, but obviously there's no proof for that.

munk-a 6y ago

I disagree - you can play a game with the same rules as chess in 1D but you can't move your pawn forward on the board in 1D. Chess is a cerebral game so it's easier to abstract it down to entirely be about the will of the movements but those movements aren't committed (in a normal game of chess) until the pieces are actually moved. So I think you can tactically play football and chess equivalents in 1D, but the actual movements required to execute the game still require three dimensions and Chess remains a game that is pretty naturally aligned with the requirements of two dimensional space. This is very pedantic at this point but I think the naive and natural assumptions about game dimensionality are probably the most correct to stick with. They can be argued up and down (absolutely no game can actually be played in less dimensions than we exist in since we only exist in so many dimensions - we might not need to exercise them to play the game but a chess piece, a computer or any existing encoding of data that we have today requires representation in 3 (or however many you think we have) dimensions - similarly pretty much everything (everything, I think?) can be described in data that can be expressed linearly so all games and the entire world can be said to be 1D. I think the fair middle ground is to try and adhere to the meaningful definition of dimensions in the middle that actually lets us classify things differently instead of saying that everything in existence is both 1D and multi-dimensional.

tutfbhuf 6y ago
Hmm. okay I understand that you still disagree but I don't get your point. > So I think you can tactically play football and chess equivalents in 1D, but the actual movements required to execute the game still require three dimensions I don't know what you mean by tactically. I never played football in 1D in my life and I think no one ever has, except if you are referring to a computer game or computer simulation. But I have played blindfold games without a chessboard and without a computer. > but you can't move your pawn forward on the board in 1D you don't need a board to play chess. A chess board be it in 2D representation on a computer screen or in 3D in real life is just a optional representation of the chess game, but you don't need it. > a computer or any existing encoding of data that we have today requires representation in 3 (or however many you think we have) I think we most likely have (according to theories that are mathematically sound) four non-compact dimension and seven that are curled up, so 11, but obviously there's no proof for that.