19 ms·
Human Chess is a chess variant where playing the top engine move is forbidden
- yoyo348 4y agoNice variant
- bopjesvla 4y agoDespite the name, this variant is absolutely mind-bending and games look nothing like regular chess. Have fun trying this out!
- WJW 4y agoThat actually looks hilarious, especially the part where checkmating is illegal since it would always be the best move. The first game highlighted is also fun. I'll have to try this next week at the chess club!
- thejteam 4y agoShould that always be the case, though? We could try to force a position where 2 separate moves checkmate. Then only 1 (presumably the one that results from capturing the highest valued piece?) would be the engine result.
- underdeserver 4y agoThis is explicitly addressed: When multiple moves have the top score, they are all top moves,
- robertlagrant 4y agoI wonder if a move that checkmates is scored lower than a move that checkmates and captures.
- klodolph 4y agoIf you can check your opponent, giving them only one legal move, you win (because it is the top engine move).
- hacym 4y agoThis is a good point. If you can check with your queen but hang it, the “best move” would be to take it. Make it so they have to take it, for example in a back rank, and you win.
- kadoban 4y agoAren't there situations where 2+ moves cause checkmate? Only one can be the top engine move. Or are all of those effectively impossible to reach unless your opponent helps?
- faheel 4y agoIt says at the bottom: > When multiple moves have the top score, they are all top moves, even if visual markers (like move arrows) suggest the engine prefers one over the other. Since all moves that checkmate the opponent will have the same score (M1 or -M1) they'll all be illegal.
- misja111 4y agoWith this variant you can win without checkmating: just checking with leaving only 1 forced move is enough to win the game.
- CarVac 4y agoAs long as putting the king in check isn't optimal…
- Dr_Birdbrain 4y agoRight, so your check should be in a context where another move was mate in 1
- misja111 4y agoNot necessarily. The check with forced answer could be a terrible move in normal chess. E.g. a check with the queen where the queen can simply be taken by the king.
- DoughnutHole 4y agoWhich it quite often is. Like the example they show with the early-game check with the queen, putting the king in check by placing a totally undefended piece within one square of the king is (usually) a suboptimal move, and the king taking that piece will (often) be the most optimal way of getting out of check. In this variant the attacking piece will effectively be protected by how bad its move was. Creates some interesting incentives - the only way to checkmate is a move that is normally not optimal and has only one way out of check.
- rendaw 4y agoAlso despite being named Human chess it's a form of chess where a computer is absolutely necessary.
- beardyw 4y agoI would prepare with terrible openings where I have studied the engine responses.
- badcppdev 4y agoAnother chess variant to make you think: https://www.chess.com/terms/duck-chess https://www.chess.com/terms/duck-chess
- curiousssnake 4y ago"" If the chess engine suggests the opponent’s move, the claimant wins the game. If not, their opponent wins instead. "" How? Top engine move changes with evaluation time. Longer the wait, better the move.
- nicoburns 4y ago> Top engine move changes with evaluation time I think that's like saying you can't play scrabble because the dictionary changes over time. You specify the engine and wait time before you start a game.
- danuker 4y agoYou can't. You have to share the best move ahead of each move. Waiting for a specific duraion may yield different results depending on CPU usage or other variables.
- scott_s 4y agoPlayers only reference the engine to resolve a claim, after the move has been played.
- bmacho 4y agoNo, there are no top engine moves in practice, and in theory.
- tromp 4y agoA 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 weaker player gets the veto.
- jl6 4y agoI expect that if I were offered a veto against a stronger player, I would not be skilled enough to spot which move to veto, and would probably end up hoarding my veto, like in video games where you have a great-but-rare ability that you keep perpetually in reserve. (“Too Awesome to Use” on TV Tropes. Link omitted - you’re welcome). But then, I’m a terrible chess player.
- mattmaroon 4y agoNah, you’d spot one pretty fast when you blundered and they went to take advantage of it. Instead you’d more likely have the opposite problem where you’d veto after a blunder but still be at such a huge disadvantage that it wouldn’t matter much. It would be pretty neat between players of similar skill level though, then I could see the hoarding taking place.
- jl6 4y agoTrue, and I can see some fun mind-games where a player might try baiting an opponent into wasting their veto on an apparently-strong move, or by intentionally playing a weaker move that still somehow looks strong but actually masks a now-unvetoable killer move…
- brandnewaccount 4y agoMaybe for players under say 1800 elo online, but for players above that this won't work -- "bluffing" isn't really a thing until you're at the very very highest levels of chess, and even then the bluffs are only during the openings and if they call your bluff you are only worse by 0.1-0.4 at the most.
- c7b 4y agoSounds fun, I guess you'll need to be both a strong chess player already and turn everything you know about chess on its head.
- lesiki 4y agoNow: 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.
- coolness 4y agoI 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.
- mattmaroon 4y agoUnless it was two different engines.
- vanderZwan 4y agoAre we reinventing GANs for chess engines here, or does it just happen to sound kinda similar?
- ccozan 4y agoI'd say let's go straight to SD and let AI paint the next move!
- hoosieree 4y agoNever go in against a Sicillian!
- tda 4y agorinse and repeat that a few times, and the only remaining winning move will be not to play
- kelahcim 4y agoThe masterpiece of the reference ;)
- nnoitra 4y ago
- aaron695 4y ago
- iLoveOncall 4y agoIs this called "Human" chess because top engine moves would not be humanely possible? I have a low chess rank (900 on chess.com), yet on an okay game 25% of my moves will be "top engine moves": https://i.imgur.com/TGaDtzr.png https://i.imgur.com/TGaDtzr.png I could even easily find games where I had 50% of top engine moves. It's really not exceptional. Often the top engine move is the only good move and that only good move is pretty obvious.
- daniel-s 4y agoStockfish variant that always plays the 2nd best move.
- planede 4y agoThat's only the best strategy, if your opponent can make any chess move.
- eyko 4y agoThe second move is too early. I've played and lost enough games against engines that I would say I've learnt some of the "best moves" (as suggested by the engine, when analysing why I lost) in almost every "usual" scenario for my "usual" openings all the way to maybe the fourth move. There are a lot of variations, but even past the fourth move I still remember some engine suggestions based on my own errors.
- shkkmo 4y agoThis seems like a misnomer of a name. "Human Chess", a variant of chess that can only be played if you have a computer...
- vanderZwan 4y agoI think it is a joke on the accusations among professional chess players that some players cheat by using a chess engine to determine their next move. In other words: claiming the move of your opponent is the top engine move is equivalent to accusing them of "cheating".
- xeyownt 4y agoYes, but this new rule also adds interesting new mechanisms, like for instance the kamikaze check move with the queen, where the opponent's only move is to take with the king, hence losing the game (as it is also engine top move). Mastering that kind of new threats does not seem easy IMO, and in fact could well be mastered by... computers ;-)
- vanderZwan 4y agoAgreed! I've heard it said that the best parodies are almost as good as the things they parody (and a sign that the comedians in question both love and understand the thing they are making a parody of). It could be argued that this chess variant is a really good "parody" in that sense, but encoded in the rules of the game itself.
- kstenerud 4y agoSo basically chess with landmines. Every move will be contested (because why wouldn't you? there are no downsides and only upsides) So every move you make (I'll be watching you) could end up being the top move. Even if you run the chess engine yourself to decide what not to play, you're still at risk of bad luck because you happen to run the chess engine on a faster or slower machine than the person checking for the top move, and they diverge. EDIT: Never mind, contesting and getting it wrong causes you to lose - that's the downside.
- vanderZwan 4y agoIf you contest a move and you're wrong you lose the game.
- kstenerud 4y agoAh I misread that part.
- Khoth 4y agoThere is a downside - if you contest and you're wrong, you lose. The page doesn't say, but it's cheating to use an engine yourself to decide what move to make (or to decide whether to contest)
- sebstefan 4y agoIt'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 an invincible juggernaut for the first half of the game until you've demolished enough pieces to make it hard to find ways to hang your queen, and by that point the material advantage is such that the opponent might just resign.
- tomesco 4y agoThere must be a threshold above which making an engine move is allowed. Because if there's a checkmate move, it will be the best engine move and needs to be allowed.
- tromp 4y agoNo; checkmates are not needed. You win the game by almost checkmating the opponent: by leaving them only one legal move, which is thus necessarily the top engine move.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- luxuryballs 4y agoSo a costly check wins but checkmate loses.
- Khoth 4y agoIf you deliver checkmate, you lose. You have to instead force your opponent into a situation where they only have one legal move (which is trivially the best engine move).
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
- xg15 4y ago> If a player only has one move available, that move will always be the top engine move, which loses the game. It's interesting that this brings another degree of indirection to victory conditions. If you never played chess before, you'd assume the goal is to take the opponent's king. But as we know, making a move that would allow your opponent to take the king is forbidden, so the goal of normal chess is force your opponent into a position where you could take the king next turn (checkmate). This variant takes this another step further: Now any move which could result in checkmate (or check with only one exit) is forbidden, and the goal is to force the opponent in a position where any next move would result in checkmate or check.
- somehnacct3757 4y agoThis could be fun for spectators streaming the match at home, who could see the top engine move in real time while the players are considering their next move
- charlieyu1 4y agoI’d say an interesting variant would be regular chess with Swap2 rule from gomoku. Which is basically the first player makes the first few moves for both sides, and the other player can decide to swap black and white.
- BurningFrog 4y agoI've been thinking about a possible chess variant to eliminate opening preparation drudgery. The Fisher 960 variant tries to do this, but it can be very different from regular chess, and some of the positions are unbalanced. I think we can use the fact that engines know when a position is even. There must be millions of even positions in the first 10 or so moves. Pick one of those randomly, and start the game.
- rtkwe 4y agoI would wonder if you need to add an 'ease of play' consideration to how even the positions are. Positions may be technically even but the play for one side could be more complicated to see your way through.
- BurningFrog 4y agoYeah, that would be a real problem. It's even if you see some amazing combination. One way to adjust would be to have everyone in a round play the same position, and calibrate. As in if black wins 90% of the games, a white win counts for more.
- fernandopj 4y agoThis is already how some engines tournaments work. They don't start from move zero, they start from some uncommon position after a few moves, but one still considered even or at least not unbalanced.
- nextaccountic 4y agoThe position doesn't need to be even though, just play twice, one with white and one with black
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoI think in the context of top level chess, eliminating opening prep is the wrong way to go. And I don't like 960 either for that reason. I think the problem with opening prep today is that there are so many drawish openings and forced draws, constructed repetitions etc. In other words it's just too easy for top players to make a low effort draw. To make top level chess more interesting I have a handful of ideas that work in tandem. 1. Change the scoring and rating systems so that a win is worth more than two draws. E.g a win is 3 points for the winner, draw is 1 point to each player. Game theoretically this should favour players that play for a win and avoid easy draws. But also modifying the rating system is crucial, otherwise we'll get the same drawmeisters dominating the rating list. 2. Change the repetition rule to be similar to xiangqi(Chinese chess) where repetitions are illegal and don't lead to a draw. This eliminates most of the lowest effort draws right out of the gate. 3. Make the game sharper and more complex. The easiest way to do this is just to remove the concept of castling altogether. Former world champion Kramnik has advocated this, and computer analyses of the ruleset is promising. King safety is suddenly a hard problem to solve in most openings and the game becomes much, much sharper. 4(optional). add more pieces. The best way is Seirawan-chess, a modification of Capablanca chess that adds a knight-bishop(hawk) and knight-rook(elephant) without changing the board geometry and starting position.
- ndr 4y agoHow quickly does this converge to anti-chess? When you have mate-in 1 it's impossible to have anything else recommended by the computer. Flip of a coin for which one is on top when you have two? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_chess
- vanderZwan 4y agoI think this would also be fun to try with Ultimate Tic-Tac-Toe, which also has the advantage of being much faster to resolve with AI than taking a minute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tic-tac-toe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tic-tac-toe
- jetnew 4y agoIf we train recursively-restricted reinforcement learning agents, could there be interesting differences in the behaviors that emerge? Could it even be used as a method for exploration? Some set-up considerations: 1) Actions must be discrete, or at least binned for restriction, 2) The number of times to restrict is limited by the size of the action space I would imagine for CartPole, the balancing would become more wobbly, while still somewhat successfully balancing. But in more complicated environments, it could result in much more different behaviors because the states visited (and trajectories) could be different.
- iepathos 4y agoHilarious satire of the whole magnus/niemann debacle! Thank you for this, made my day.
- benj111 4y agoSo what if you make a engine that plays this.... That's making my head hurt.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoWhat about positions where there are multiple moves that are indistinguishable to the engine? The order in this case is somewhat arbitrary and might change randomly each time you run the engine depending on which engine it is.
- twawaaay 4y agoNaive. I can create an engine which will plan with this restriction in mind. In other words, whatever the rules, you can have an engine that will try to do the best according to the rules.
- RivieraKid 4y agoHow would such engine work? Chess engines work by evaluating a lot of positions. But in order to evaluate a single Human Chess position, you need to run a normal chess engine for a minute to determine the top move.
- twawaaay 4y agoYes and no. I think you overestimate how much you would have to defer to this external engine that would have to say which move is "top". Every move you advance you chessboard situation by one move only and that move is already part of the tree calculated previously. You don't need to search through massively more new moves because, assuming sane players, the move each player makes is one of the very few top moves previously considered by the engine.
- jll29 4y agoAn interesting variant of chess; Alan Turing is said to have introduced another, outdoors version of chess where you'd move, then run around the house, and if the opponent hasn't moved by the time you're back, you'd get to move a second time. That change of rules ought to push Turing's variant somewhat outside the tree of possibilities of traditional chess.
- Hoover889 4y agoHow does this work for forced moves? If there is only one possible response to a move that move must be the top engine move.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jonnybarnes 4y agoYes, forcing your opponent into a situation where there is only one valid move means you win. When they make the move you claim that’s the top engine move, and you’d be correct.
- why-el 4y agoIt's covered: > If a player only has one move available, that move will always be the top engine move, which loses the game.
- tomxor 4y agoInteresting to think how you would go about defeating this. Even though you could modify an engine to evaluate each of it's moves against the selected "top engine" move to avoid them, there is no clear route to success since there's going to be a lot of overlap between human and computer for more obvious moves... So you'd need some kind of tunable difficulty threshold above which it avoids the best solution. Even then, your difficulty setting is a gamble on whether your opponent will call your bluff. In the opposite case, because of the same overlap, false positives are going to be a combination of frustrating and flattering. I find this is the case in most of the online FPS I have played, the knowledge that cheating is possible combined with the disbelief of the ceiling on human ability makes a huge number of people think you are cheating even if your ability is merely above average. There are also confusing overlaps between cheating behaviour and pros on FPS when trying to evaluate replays e.g wallhackers (especially pro wallhackers) and pros sometimes look very similar, because the pros are attempting to track through the walls in their mind... if they get lucky, a replay makes them look super suspicious and hard to distinguish in a single case. There are going to be a ton of games like this where the cheating behaviour are close or identical to the top pros.
- mabbo 4y agoI think the 'challenge and win' concept is too strict. Just make the move disallowed. You'll need the computer to be paying attention at all times, but nonetheless it would be more enjoyable to play.
- luxuryballs 4y agoTrue you could have a ghost piece of the computers move and you just can’t move there.
- bentcorner 4y agoI'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?
- cortesoft 4y agoThis is a completely different game than regular chess, so I don't know if it is part of the game or not.
- jonnybarnes 4y agoHow does the game end? Anytime you can checkmate is going to be the computer’s recommended move.
- hacym 4y agoThe 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.
- hyperhopper 4y agoWhy wouldn't the game end?
- nraynaud 4y agoIs there a standard evaluation function in chess engines?
- luciusdomitius 4y agoI don't think so, but it is deterministic and given equal depth all search-based engines should theoritically pop the same one. The AI-based (е.g. AlphaZero) ones are obviously different.
- hateful 4y agoWhen I read the title, I assumed it would show you the top move and that move would be blocked. But instead it lets you do whatever move you want and then you lose if you happen to chose the same one. Interesting.
- jawadch93 4y ago[dead]
- Waterluvian 4y agoOkay I love where this goes if explored a bit. Imagine "Shitty Chess" where you can't play the top 10 moves (or if fewer are available, you must pick the worst option). I feel like this would be a funny novelty for a YouTube video. Maybe we can get some YouTube grand-masters like Nakamura to tolerate a few games for the schadenfreude.
- manor 4y agoThe 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...
- darkstar999 4y agoSeems 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.
- tantalor 4y agoNext 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.
- robervin 4y agoIf I refuse to play am I also tortured
- 323 4y agoBut if you are playing Basilisk Chess it means you are aware of the Basilisk. So both players need to stop playing immediately after the first move and start working towards making strong AI happen, or they will be VR tortured forever.
- taneq 4y agoWhat? No, Basilisk Chess is where two players compete to make the chess move that optimizes some future AI's utility function. If you lose you get tortured forever.
- Tepix 4y agoThere is a variant of chess where you place a chicken after your move to an empty field of your choice and the opponent is not allowed to play there. Once the opponent has made her move, she can place the chicken on any other empty field.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 10xDev 4y agoChess variants: Chess but worse.
- luciusdomitius 4y agoThis will definitely have unintended consequences - once you know that your opponent cannot make the top move, you would start abusing it. It might be fun though - I am recently playing Fischer's chess on lichess.org and it is crazy - you beat a 2200+ player and lose against 945 the very next game. A lot of fun though.
- Configure0251 4y agoHey, could someone please explain this for my friend? They don't get it.
- buzzdenver 4y agoI would assume that this is a tongue-in-cheek suggestion; a commentary on the state of chess in 2022. Otherwise it makes zero sense, because what you're doing is using the rules of one game, Real Chess, to determine what moves are allowed in a completely different one, Human Chess, in a way that is very complicated and awkward. How would the top engine move be defined in an endgame where you have few enough pieces to use a table-base? Is any move that leads to a win a top-move? Or just the one that does so the quickest? Madness :)
- vippy 4y agohar har.
- ansible 4y agoRather than play something like this, there are many chess variants that people could try instead. Like Hexagonal Chess [1]. No one has written engines for them or otherwise invested huge amounts of time and effort in research. So you can be reasonably certain that your opponent isn't using an engine to score a cheap win against you. [1] https://greenchess.net/variants.php?cat=6 https://greenchess.net/variants.php?cat=6
- mrandish 4y agoObligatory reference post to Fischer Random Chess (aka Chess960). A variant designed to "make gaining an advantage through the memorization of openings impracticable; players instead must rely more on their skill and creativity over the board." A combination of Human Chess and Chess960 might be interesting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Praising_or_predicting_Fischer_random_chess_is_the_future_of_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Praising_...
- klyrs 4y agoCheckmate is forbidden because it's what the engine suggests. Check with a single escape is suddenly the goal. But if you're in check, do the rules say you need to try to escape it? Or can you take the opportunity to capture the queen, thumbing your nose at the false threat?
- electrotype 4y agoYou can actually checkmate if there are two ways to do it and one is uglier.
- rnestler 4y agoNot really, read the fine print :) > When multiple moves have the top score, they are all top moves, even if visual markers (like move arrows) suggest the engine prefers one over the other. This would be the case for two check mates.
- bena 4y agoThe goal of the game is to capture the opposing player's King. Technically, you don't have to escape a check. But the other player can take your King and you'd lose. That's why checkmate is seen as a win, because on the player's next turn he can take the opponent's King and there's nothing the opponent can do about it. In rapid chess, if you overlook check or put your own King in check, your opponent can claim the win. Now, what happens in Human Chess, I don't know. Because I would assume that the best move would be to capture the King and win the game. Assuming that you can't capture the King because it's the recommended move, this does seem like something you could exploit to some degree.
- pashabitz 4y agoLOL I read this title as a "Showerthoughts", just stating a funny fact about "normal" chess.
- davidw 4y agoI immediately thought of Marostica, but I guess this is easier than travelling to northern Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marostica#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marostica#History
- knubie 4y agoI dont follow the chess world that closely, but could someone explain why chess960 isn't more popular? Its been around for awhile and solves the problem of people memorizing opening lines, and boring chess games where the first n moves are predetermined.
- 3pt14159 4y agoIt 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 like a pine to a maple.
- hyperhopper 4y agoDisagree. 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.
- 3pt14159 4y agoThat'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.
- vaidhy 4y agoSo, everyone has to play to lose and who loses first wins? If I leave my king open to checkmate, the best move from AI would be to take that.. but the opponent cannot do that. So, I get to leave my key pieces open and the opponent tries to do the same??
- nathanvanfleet 4y agoThere is nothing more human than having to imagine the procedures and operations of a machine at all times.
- EGreg 4y agoOh great. Now let’s make a chess engine to solve this game and then we’ll be playing the Human Human chess, and so on!
- bertil 4y agoThere are a lot of examples here of where that would fail (openings, checks). Would it make sense to introduce rules like letting people pick any move they want for the first three turns, or allowing any checking move and counter-checking move? Or is that one of those situation where trying to fix an obvious problem lead to move issues with defining the problem clearly?
- paulsutter 4y agoMachines would have an even greater advantage here. They know exactly the second best move, and would easily calculate it based on any set of constraints. Humans are worse at the increased complexity
- oehpr 4y agoThe catch here is that the engine doesn't understand the objective in its search. To the engine, getting the king in check with an obvious response is no issue, in human chess its game over. My bet (uninformed, very novice at chess) is that it's likely there's guaranteed setups that would always catch an engine.
- OJFord 4y agoBut then they'd just always play second best until they at best drew, or (more likely) meet with a forced move that's inherently the best engine move and lose. You need a different engine that's focussed on not only avoiding conventionally top moves itself, but also forcing its opponent into them.
- vxNsr 4y agoThat’s the point. That’s why it’s called HUMAN chess, it’s a game that doesn’t make sense for a computer to play.
- nottorp 4y agoIs it human chess if you have to think like an engine to know what not to do?
- esparrohack 4y agoI haven’t played chess seriously since I was in high school but I do like collecting hardwood chess boards cus they look great as room decor. I give them out as gifts too. Everyone loves a chess set.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoSo 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.
- ixtenu 4y agoTFA: > 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.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoYikes; did not read that carefully enough.
- layman51 4y agoIt seems like it would be fun to watch people play this. What would happen if one player cheated by using the same engine that was selected at the start and consistently picked the second, third, fourth, or fifth engine move? I don’t think that would work out for them because the game incentivizes you to win by forcing your opponent to take a high-level piece like your queen to win and then calling them out for being forced to have used the top engine move, right?
- alfiedotwtf 4y ago> where playing the top move is forbidden Pfff... I do this all the time /s
- kazinator 4y agoHow about American Liberal Chess: playing the top move selected by the asian or white male is forbidden, because it reduces accessibility and diversity.