John Whelan wrote on Mon, Dec 14, 2015 08:57 PM UTC:
My own limited understanding might be by way of the following illustration.
Let's say (only by way of illustration) that a game offers 10 reasonable
move options per turn, and that a computer calculating likely futures has a
calculation limit of 10 billion. It will reach this limit after 10 moves.
But if there are 20 reasonable move options per turn, it will reach this
limit before 8 moves; if 40 options, then before 7; if 80, then before 6
moves; if 160 then before 5 moves; if 320, then before 4 moves.
None of this helps the human player unless the human can, in some
significant respects, think ahead and see strategic options, using his
natural or intuitive strategic powers, at a number of moves ahead beyond
which the computer can calculate.
That's what I'm not seeing from your "Sac Chess". It might be huge fun and
result in beautiful unpredictable chaos; but that's mainly from a human
perspective. If it offers a human a better chance to see several moves
ahead then a computer, then I am not seeing or understanding the strategy
by which the human could achieve this.
Which brings me to a suspicion and worry that I cannot fully shake off -
that a computer-resistant chess might also be a boring chess variant.
