[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
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.
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.
George, I would like to make several comments here: 1. Gating is supposed to be a definition, and a subset of drops. I am sure there are lots of way to do this. The purpose of it is to give people an idea as to how it differs from a standard drop. It also involves the relocating pieces on the board. I am sure that people can come up with more. I believe the key is to have a stable definition, and then list some major examples. I am of the belief it is an important term to consider, debate, and reach an agreement over. The end and final shape isn't as important as what it is. 2. The issue of the 8x8 board is that it is now a convention, and a starting point, for testing, because it is what is readily available, and has an established chess game being played with millions of people play it (that being FIDE Chess). What was suggested is ONE approach to this, as a possible way. And no, I disagree with you on the less than 100 years approach. What is suggested is to use ALL the possible variant conventions as a way to expand chess here. This means reserves, it means mutators, it means different board condition. And with the reserves, it means changing the mix of pieces. It also means more that this. But what does matter is there is a common foundation this is all to fit into. Chess960 isn't going to get stuck in 100 years, why do you think a larger system will? If you suggest that it will get stuck again in 100 years, well then this site is doomed to be stuck within 100 years. As for the IAGO Chess System classes, well it is taking what is seen today as chess and variants, and expanding it, as a way to think about it. You have standard stuff (A-Class). Then it is suggested that there be an evolutionary design, that has a B-Class migration to it. C and M Class represent the slower fixed one, and the M-Class as the version where a chess game can migrate to. In the B-Class I am proposing that the piece mix map to the rules (so we don't have an 8 pawn promote to queens problem, which breaks when you add any more pieces). Then with the variants, I propose that you have a V-Class for accepted variants that work, along with mutators, and pieces. And an X-Class where things can be experimented with. This is meant as a starting point of discussion. 3. Anything that is a set of rules is axiomatic, as the definition of axiomatic is rules. So game rules would apply also. What Godel's incompleteness theorem says that no system of rules can be both complete and non-contradictory. In other words, every set of rules will end up producing more rules. In other words, rules keep evolving. This is valid here. And if you think that games have nothing to do with math, I am sure that the game theory people will be surprised. And Combinatorial Game Theorists (this is the foundation abstract strategy games are built on) would be shocked.
4 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.