Author Topic: The chess thread!  (Read 4179 times)

Re:
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2013, 08:07:16 PM »
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
There's no reason Windows chess programs would ever be programmed to be as difficult as Deep Blue. If they were, playing against them would be useless and no one would buy the software. Regarding human interference, I don't know any more than you do. Its possible, but theres no way to know for sure, and no guarantee that if it did happen it didn't ultimately improve the AI.

No no no, I wasn't saying that they are programmed to be that hard, the point was that they allow for human interjection.  If DB was allowed to do that than was it ever really that good?

Offline _Xenu_

Re: Re:
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2013, 08:25:38 PM »
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
There's no reason Windows chess programs would ever be programmed to be as difficult as Deep Blue. If they were, playing against them would be useless and no one would buy the software. Regarding human interference, I don't know any more than you do. Its possible, but theres no way to know for sure, and no guarantee that if it did happen it didn't ultimately improve the AI.

No no no, I wasn't saying that they are programmed to be that hard, the point was that they allow for human interjection.  If DB was allowed to do that than was it ever really that good?
Your question is hypothetical and avoids important points. First, theres no way for your average Windows chess program to incorporate human intervention. If deep blue was interfered with in the way you suggest, then no it wasn't "that good." I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if you wish to assert that it did, the burden of proof is on you.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: The chess thread!
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2013, 08:35:17 PM »
You have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that chess threads are more boring than used toilet paper after flushing.  :-|
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Re: Re:
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2013, 08:45:57 PM »
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
Your question is hypothetical and avoids important points. First, theres no way for your average Windows chess program to incorporate human intervention. If deep blue was interfered with in the way you suggest, then no it wasn't "that good." I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if you wish to assert that it did, the burden of proof is on you.

There is a way for your typical chess program to incorporate human interfereance, in fact it does as in a simple form of being able to swap from a computer opponent to a human oppenent while still in game.  I was not the one that made the assertion, I merely conveyed what started the controversy, which you in fact happened to say you knew about.

Offline _Xenu_

(No subject)
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2013, 10:29:15 PM »
While its technically possible to insert a human into an online chess match, its well outside the norm. I think real life examples of this are extremely rare if existent at all.  Having said that, I admittedly should have phrased my sentence more carefully. But in any case, this conversation has strayed too far from its origin and no longer holds my interest.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(No subject)
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2013, 12:24:06 AM »
I once tried to create a new version of chess with a hexagonal board so three people could play.

Also tooled around with extending the board to 10x10 and 12x12 and creating new pieces with special capabilities.

I finally came to the conclusion that the game is perfect as it is and cannot be improved.

Re:
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2013, 01:45:49 AM »
Quote from: "Zatoichi"
I once tried to create a new version of chess with a hexagonal board so three people could play.

Also tooled around with extending the board to 10x10 and 12x12 and creating new pieces with special capabilities.

I finally came to the conclusion that the game is perfect as it is and cannot be improved.

Many have tried, and I have seen a 15x15 where you get two of each of the pieces minus the rook where you only get one extra and you have to capture one king before you can win.  I have also seen what is know as "Super Chess" where when you capture a piece you gain it's power until you move like that piece.  This version sucked the most because you could win the game with 1 piece.

Re: Re:
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2013, 01:57:28 AM »
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "Zatoichi"
I once tried to create a new version of chess with a hexagonal board so three people could play.

Also tooled around with extending the board to 10x10 and 12x12 and creating new pieces with special capabilities.

I finally came to the conclusion that the game is perfect as it is and cannot be improved.

Many have tried, and I have seen a 15x15 where you get two of each of the pieces minus the rook where you only get one extra and you have to capture one king before you can win.  I have also seen what is know as "Super Chess" where when you capture a piece you gain it's power until you move like that piece.  This version sucked the most because you could win the game with 1 piece.

Same problems I ran into... it unbalanced the game and either made it too hard to win or too easy.

But I would still like to see a way of making it a 3-player game. THAT would be very interesting since Chess is basically a metaphor for conflict and warfare, and as we all know there are often more than two participants in war.

This would open up the possibility for alliances, initially anyway... then after one player is eliminated, the game continues, etc. How to keep it balanced is the tricky part.

I came up with pieces that could change from vertical/lateral movement, like a Rook, to diagonal movement, like Bishops, only they could only change every other move so you would have to remember what it's properties were the last time it moved. Also had the diagonal equivalent of the Knight... two up, one over, but in diagonal. And a piece that could become a blocker if you chose to make no moves in the turn, but you we're barred from ever moving it again, making it a permanent block on the board, and no pieces path could go through it.

Lot's of fun playing around with different ideas though.

Offline Plu

(No subject)
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2013, 02:06:08 AM »
Look no further, then.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re:
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2013, 03:28:00 AM »
Quote from: "Plu"
Look no further, then.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

SWEEEET!

Looks almost just like my version but my board was all hexagons instead of triangles and the lineups were on only one edge of the big hex. I think my version had far too many spaces than this, though it looks just as confusing to play as my version, haha!  :P

Bastards beat me to it though!  #-o

(No subject)
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2013, 06:08:13 AM »
What if you were to put six chess boards together in a huge rectangle? Six player chess... :)  :-D  :shock:  :lol:  =D>  :rolleyes:  :P
"The idea of getting a, y\'know, syringe full of heroin and shooting it in the vein under my cock right now seems like almost a productive act." -Bill Hicks

Offline Plu

(No subject)
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2013, 06:16:01 AM »
I'm pretty sure that some players would be check-mate from the start if you just hook the boards up together.

Although I have once seen a 4-player chessboard as well. It had two extra rows on each side of the board where the pieces were set for each player, and the 8x8 center was empty. But it looked like it wouldn't work properly.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Jutter

(No subject)
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2013, 06:21:39 AM »
Not much into chess, but the other day I got one of this fellow's videos instead of the usual commercial. I thought it might suit this thread.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[youtube:38eid5dj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjIt_88BLHE[/youtube:38eid5dj]
And I came across this older video, featuring mr. Karpov.
[youtube:38eid5dj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnRB3QjgPAo[/youtube:38eid5dj]
No religion for me thank you very much; I 'm full of shit enough as it is.

Being flabbergasted about existence never made anyone disappear in a poof of flabbergas, so nevermind why we're here. We ARE here.

Re:
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2013, 09:49:40 PM »
[spoil:32au7ipm]
Quote from: "Jutter"
Not much into chess, but the other day I got one of this fellow's videos instead of the usual commercial. I thought it might suit this thread.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And I came across this older video, featuring mr. Karpov.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
[/spoil:32au7ipm]
I've seen that first guys videos... think I may have even subbed his channel. I'll have to check out his vids. Don't really play much anymore though...was never really all that good, too little patience, haha!

Offline Sal1981

Re: The chess thread!
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2013, 12:05:31 PM »
Been playing chess since I was 6.

I won a game against You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, drunk.

I don't know how many games I've played, or how often; I just play for fun. I don't read chess books, I hardly know the names of the many different openings. I'm not a part of a chess club, although invited on several occasions to join one. I guess I just don't like competitiveness that obscures the fun of playing chess.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk