[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
1) The classification system 'a-e' for Gating-drops is incomplete and could easily become 'a-z' without much effort. That is, for anyone accepting the prolificist ethos. 2) What if OrthoChess were 7x7 or 6x6 (closer to 1950's Los Alamos)? Then we would all suspect that, even with all Hutnik's suggested idiosyncratic methods, Chess would become 'stuck' again in 10 or 80 years. 8x8 seems to be right on the threshold, or cusp, or interface, of inevitable difficulty, whatever is tried in later-added Drops, randomized openings, or introduced exotic pieces etc. However there is no proof of that. 3) Is Chess a formal axiomatic system, after David Hilbert and Kurt Godel? No, because Chess, except allegorically, does not purport to represent reality like Mathematics. So long as all lines of play are not solved, then some lines are unsolved, probably most when considering higher board sizes; and probability as to best lines of attack have already entered players' algorithms for play, or heurisitic equations, without the need for more structuring of hidden information.
In another thread, Singh wrote: Not a member, so responding to 'Unsticking Chess' here. Regarding: 'doing all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years' In my opinion, not even close. As soon as someone designs a computer smart enough to improve itself, processing power explodes exponentially. The future is going to be way, way different than anything we can imagine using the current paradigm. ----------------------------------------------------- This is why I was starting a discussion on what that paradigm can be. I personally believe that the open-source method would lend well towards this, via community consensus. This could start with the chess variant crowd, and them coordinating. I am offer people a chance to discuss the IAGO Chess System as a starting point, from the drops and gating, to the classification system, to the attempt to get Capablanca pieces onto an 8x8 board. This could perhaps lead to a new paradigm. I would rather this be an opening for a discussion, rather than saying it is merely beyond what we can imagine, so why bother. Finally, I would say that all this is for more than just 'oh it lies beyond the computer'. It is for the purpose of serving the fullness of the chess community.
I believe the framework of chess can be addressed now so that we never turn chess into a solved game. I personally believe there is part of the answer in a game like Seirawan Chess, or a pocket version with reserves, but I don't think they alone have the answer. It also doesn't address the framework issue either that gets chess stuck, and all the classic abstract strategy game (stuck here means set on a path to being 'solved', without a way to adjust before it does). My take on Godel's Incompleteness Theorm is that you don't solve the systemic issues with a certain set of rules by creating more rules of the same type. If it is show, for example with chess, that a set configuration of chess pieces on the board eventually produces something that is solved, then changing the configuration of the pieces on the board alone doesn't resolve it either (one time, fixed). You can change the their starting position (aka Chess960/Pick your Army/MetaChess or the V and X versions of IAGO Chess), the layout of the board at start (and also changing it during play, aka Beyond Chess), or when the pieces enter the game (IAGO/Seirawan/Pocket Knight/Pocket Mutant), and help to push things out further. If you build into the framework by which you can do all of the above, you buy more time. What regular chess has now is not a way to make chess get 'unstuck', allowing it to adjust over time. I suggest all of the above be considered and integrated, and the players settled on what works best. Eventually even this mix of everything leads to a 'stuck' position as the playing community may figure out what is optimal. By then, some other people will need to come up with another layer of rules to insure things are unstuck. I can't say this for certain, but I do know unsticking chess by doing all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years, using all of the above methods described. The key to having it get unstuck is to have it done in a way that it is evolutionary, so the playing community can migrate over time and get used to the changes. Also added to the mix are 'mutators' which are meta-changes to how the game works that get added during play. PlunderChess, for example, is built on a mutator that is active from the start, pieces fusing together. Even these added can have an impact, and force people to think more creatively, relying on principles. These changes act as weather, and another key element to getting chess unstuck (and other abstract strategy games for that matter). All these elements help to battle to keep a game from getting stuck, without the use of random element, or hidden information, which is the standard method used to unstick a game. Like, the case of backgammon, luck prevents it from getting stuck for a long time. Stratego uses hidden information, and the bluff element causes players to play other players. In this you need to know your opponent more than the environment. Because of this, a game like poker can be played even 1000 years from now, because you play the players, and luck also offsets (hidden information+luck). Magic: The Gathering, and also Cosmic Encounter also relate to this, which has in its makeup things that continue to change the rules. I believe such mutators can be applied to a game like chess, but not in such a chaotic manner. In other words, you can have a game that is a pure abstract strategy game, but where the rules do change during the course of a game, if the players control when the rules come into effect and the potential rules are fully known by all players in the game. Please feel free to comment here.
4 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.