[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Nomic Chess. Combination of Peter Suber's Nomic with Ralph Betza's Chess For Any Number of Players.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2008-12-24 UTCRobert Abbott's greatest game is Eleusis, about the best game of all time. One interesting derivative for us is Eleusis Nomic, because Robert Abbott invented both Eleusis and Ultima. You would think Eleusis is already Nomic by its nature; how much more Nomic can we make it?; follow the link alongside Doug Chatham. How does Nomic Chess relate to Calvinball Chess? In answer to earlier comment, Doug Chatham writes: ''If there are 35 Mutable Rules and 209 is still in effect, the player still has the option to propose transmuting a rule to immutable status or to propose repealing a mutable rule.'' Douglas Hofstadter's 'Metamagical Themas' (1985) has chapter on Peter Suber's Nomic self-modifying game, and Nomic Chess takes that another step to Chess. George Duke wrote on 2005-02-15 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Doug Chatham mentions Nomic Chess in new 'Big Outer Chess' Comment, where I rate as progressively more purely self-modifying the following: B.O.C., Ralph Betza's Turning Chess; Fourriere's Pocket Polypiece, Betza's Polypiece; Betza's Many Rules in One Game; Howe's Megachess, the latter's pieces being recursively a game of chess. The ideal would be a fully self-modifying chess that does not even anticipate its own sets of rules. How could such a game be played strategically? To be brief, probabilistically; for there would still be an environment in which an embodiment is more or less likely to arise. I do not know whether the term for Peter Suber's Nomic 'self-modifying game' originates in Douglas Hofstadter's 'Metamagical Themas'; but that is where I first saw it. Nomic Chess substantially applies Suber's method to chess rules and armies. Yet there is a difference between putative random selection of rules and deliberate self-amendment. Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-01-17 UTCIf there are 35 mutable rules (and 209 is still in effect), the player still has the option to propose transmuting a rule to immutable status or to propose repealing a mutable rule. Anonymous wrote on 2005-01-17 UTCConflict between Rules 103, 202, and 209: What happens if there are already 35 mutable rules, but a player has to propose a rule-change? Anonymous wrote on 2004-11-30 UTCPoor ★Having elimenation rules in a nomic is a bad idea because you can try to elimenate any detractors of your proposed rule-changes. 5 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.