Custom Search

[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

# Rated Comments for a Single Item

Later Earlier
Many Worlds Chess. Large variant, inspired by the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Anonymous wrote on 2009-05-12 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
```It seems to me that Weissman's perfect strategy could be foiled by
allowing non-splitting moves, so that on your turn, you have three options:

1. Make two legal moves on some board, splitting that board.
2. Make a single move on some board.
3. Make a transfer move from one board to another.

Thus, you do not have to use the many worlds feature of this game unless

Adrian King wrote on 2008-11-19 UTCPoor ★
```After not having looked at this page for years, I'm gratified that some
people have been generous enough to squander their time on it, and even to
rate it better than Poor.

As best I can tell from a two-minute back-of-the-envelope calculation,
Jonathan Weissman is right, and the game is fatally flawed. That relieves
us all of the tedium of actually trying to play it.

Mr. Hutnik, I'm not quite sure I understand your attempted repair. I
think you're just saying that each board remembers whose turn it is to
move, and that you can only make a move on a board where it's your turn.
May we assume that only splitting moves allowed, and not the transfer
moves in the original rules?

If I've got it right, then starting at board 0-W (that is, board zero
with White to move), boards get created in a sequence looking something
like this (assuming that no identical ones are created and merged):

W: 0-W => 1-B 2-B

B: 1-B => 3-W 4-W, resulting in the set of boards {2-B 3-W 4-W}
(White now has just two boards to choose from, 3-W and 4-W)

W: 3-W => 5-B 6-B {2-B 4-W 5-B 6-B}

B: 2-B => 7-W 8-W {4-W 5-B 6-B 7-W 8-W}

W: 8-W => 9-W 10-W {4-W 5-B 6-B 7-W 9-W 10-W}

That is, on move n, White has n boards to choose from (if there have been
no merges), and Black n + 1 boards.

At least initially, it sounds better-behaved than my original. However, I
still have strong reservations about anyone actually attempting this (and
do please count me out). The most concrete worry I have is that the weaker
player will refuse to move on any board where he/she is starting to lose,
and instead concentrate on the boards where less progress has been made --
so that you wind up playing through all possible openings without ever
reaching a midgame.

But I'd still be interested in hearing the outcome if anyone ever does
come up with a version of this idea that actually works.```

George Duke wrote on 2008-07-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Many worlds and Chess. Calvinball would not be far afield. All possible universes, from one of which the Dragon carries over, in reading Clifford Simak's 'Way Station'(?). Dragon and all the Dragon's resonances East and West. We consider fashionable extremely strong anthropic principle. Mere strong anthropic points to the observable being as it is fully in order precisely for us to observe it. Weak anthropic addresses conscious life, numerical constants, the gravitational constant. If Earth is 10% closer, or Sol 10% cooler, or proton 10% heavier, no Life and all that that entails. Stronger, we get to all possible worlds, and where else intelligence can be. (Skeptics leave out ''else,'' questioning Earthly intelligence.) Strong anthropic posits different fundamental constants and laws of Physics in different universes. Extremely strong anthropic would hold that a universe came about in order to embody narrow agenda, like works of Shakespeare, or forms and moves of Chess, or some other preferred spiritual zealotry. Adrian King begins 'Scirocco' with H.J.R. Murray in 'A History of Chess': ''Of the making of these games there need be no end, and I have no doubt that many other varieties have been proposed and perhaps played, of which we have been spared the knowledge.'' -- 1912, anticipating Capablanca Chess, Cavalry Chess, and some others.

Anonymous wrote on 2008-07-09 UTCBelowAverage ★★
Whoa. Ok, my IQ is over 140 and I still cannot wrap my mind around this game's lunatic complexity. Can you imagine a few moves into the game, when you have 10 different boards in the middlegame? And a King to protect on each? The number of boards increases every turn, and you only have to lose one king to lose the game? No offense, but this game is insane. Unplayable. Interesting concept, though.

Later Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.

﻿