Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ 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
MSsej[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sat, Dec 9, 2023 01:27 AM UTC:

Since the author erased the content of this page, I will delete it.


Ben Reiniger wrote on Mon, Aug 30, 2021 10:20 PM UTC in reply to Simon Jepps from 07:45 PM:

I don't see a problem updating the page to give the correct probabilities, in percentages if you would prefer. If for some reason you really prefer "1/3", then please add "approximately" (and these comments can serve any curious visitor). I find the "1/3+1/36" part for capturing extremely confusing, because it suggests I am more likely rather than less to roll doubles?

I find the mathematical notation being used as bullet points distracting. I would also suggest moving the ≅ point being moved into a later section as an alternative rule.

I also find the many capitalizations, italicizations, and underlinings distracting; if you could try to minimize those a little I think you would more effectively emphasize fewer points.


Simon Jepps wrote on Mon, Aug 30, 2021 07:45 PM UTC in reply to Bn Em from 07:15 PM:

With all due respect, it is blatantly obvious to anyone this side of Christmas, that two dice will approximately double your chances of rolling a particular value. So no, the "8.33%" doesn't bother me at all.

This game was written with the expectation that it would be embraced as a generality and not a mathematical investigation. I would therefore find it offensive if it were disallowed publication on that merit.

I have no intention of becoming a mathematician. In fact I have always felt offended by mathematicians, not least because my father, who is a mathematician, believes anybody who cannot understand mathematics must be "mentally disabled".

Granted whence in context, he backtracks to "basic arithmetic", but of course that's true, in fact if you can't do basic arithmetic then you probably can't read or write either. Thus it is a deeper bias he harbours and this has always been his insinuation.

Of course not all mathematicians are like my father and so I mean no disrespect, but suspending publication of this article under arguably similar conditions is not appreciated.

The articles on Séj, both here and at my website ChecToe.Org, will remain unchanged.


Bn Em wrote on Mon, Aug 30, 2021 07:15 PM UTC in reply to Simon Jepps from Sat Aug 28 05:51 PM:

when playing the game one is generally attempting to achieve a particular double

Perhaps, but if that's what you meant it might be worth being clearer about that; the way it's phrased aþm suggests that the probability of being able to make any Séj‐dice capturing move (assuming availability of pieces to capture) is 1∕3+1∕36=13∕36, which doesn't really make sense (not least, that'd be likelier than merely being able to move even if the 1∕3 figure were correct). The actual probability is in fact, as dax00 said, 11∕36(=chance of matching the last piece to move)×1∕6(=chance of a double)=11∕216. The chance of any given piece being able to capture is 1∕6 of that again, i.e. 11∕1296.

since the fraction 11∕36 is almost a third, doesn't that in effect equate to 1∕3?

Well 1∕3=12∕36, so… no? It's close, sure, but still an 8.33% difference — if you consider that trivial enough to be discounted fine, but don't expect everyone (especially those of us with a mathematical inclination) to agree.

There is a 66.6% chance that, because each turn the dice MUST match the opponent's piece, thence the game will continue as regular Classical Chess

I also just noticed this remark; even aside from the percentage being wrong — the chance that a given turn will be ‘normal’ is 25∕36=69.44% — it's not clear whether you mean that to apply only to each turn, or (incorrectly) to the whole game. After 2 turns the likelihood of still having a normal game is 25∕36×25∕36=625∕1296 (less than 1∕2) and it keeps going down from there. Having a full game of Séj where the dice do not once allow a deviation from ‘classical’ chess is vanishingly unlikely.


Simon Jepps wrote on Sat, Aug 28, 2021 05:51 PM UTC in reply to Bn Em from 11:23 AM:

"The chance of rolling any given double (e.g., as in your link, a double 6) is indeed 1∕36. There are, however, six doubles to choose from, so the total probability is in fact 1∕6 of rolling any double."

Well when playing the game one is generally attempting to achieve a particular double, so I'll let that stand.

"Alas, adding probabilities does not work that way. In effect you've counted the outcome of a double twice. The chance of rolling at least one of a given number with 2 dice is, in fact, 1−(1−1∕6)²=11∕36."

I did have doubts about adding probabilities like that. However, since the fraction 11/36 is almost a third, doesn't that in effect equate to 1/3?


Bn Em wrote on Sat, Aug 28, 2021 11:23 AM UTC in reply to Simon Jepps from Fri Aug 27 08:48 PM:

The chance of rolling a double is 1/36. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32313428/understanding-the-probability-of-a-double-six-if-i-roll-two-dice

The chance of rolling any given double (e.g., as in your link, a double 6) is indeed 1∕36. There are, however, six doubles to choose from, so the total probability is in fact 1∕6 of rolling any double.

The chance of rolling a single is 1/6 ⁓ but two dice thence double the likelihood of instances to 1/3

Alas, adding probabilities does not work that way. In effect you've counted the outcome of a double twice. The chance of rolling at least one of a given number with 2 dice is, in fact, 1−(1−1∕6)²=11∕36.


Simon Jepps wrote on Sat, Aug 28, 2021 02:26 AM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from Fri Aug 27 10:40 PM:

I chose an 'arrow point' like symbol to highlight the two primary kinds of positive result.

It occured to me that the reader may wish to find this information easily.

The wavy line above two straight lines indicates an 'alternating course over the foundation' and so felt this would adorn the alternative rule paragraph nicely.

Thus they are not actually meant to be 'bullet points' just highlighters of the two primary divinations.

Bullet points would not in any way be suitable, they would only confuse rather than guide and so I chose these symbols instead.

Furthermore if there would be any confusion it is now explained here in the comments. But I really don't see why it matters, since all the rules are easy to follow.

People in my town can understand it.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Aug 27, 2021 10:40 PM UTC in reply to Simon Jepps from 08:48 PM:

They are just decorative bullet points.

If you mean to use bullet points, you should use the UL and LI tags. Also, it's not clear to me why these particular paragraphs would be bulleted.


Simon Jepps wrote on Fri, Aug 27, 2021 08:48 PM UTC:

@Fergus

They are just decorative bullet points.

@dax00 I am not a mathematician but I see the following truths.

The chance of rolling a double is 1/36. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32313428/understanding-the-probability-of-a-double-six-if-i-roll-two-dice

The chance of rolling a single is 1/6 ~ but two dice thence double the likelihood of instances to 1/3.

You are absolutely correct that the ability to capture does not guarantee any capture, or even that any possible capture would be worthwhile and all these kinds of topics are covered in depth at Chec Toe :: Séj, in the page discussion thread.


dax00 wrote on Fri, Aug 27, 2021 11:20 AM UTC:

Just a note about probabilities. There's actually an 11/36 (30.6%) chance of rolling a specific number, and the chance of a double is 1/6. So the probability of activating the rolled-double ability is 11/216 (5.1%). Even then, it's far from guaranteed that the piece type chosen by that double is able to capture a piece, or that such capture is desirable.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Aug 26, 2021 09:38 PM UTC:

I don't understand the use of ≽ and ≅ on this page.


Simon Jepps wrote on Fri, Aug 13, 2021 01:53 PM UTC:

My mistake. The file I was attempting to upload was too big. The issue wouldn't have been raised though if it had told me that to begin with.

I do apologise Fergus, it was nothing to do with permissions. If you could get it to say "File too big" instead it would save you poking around unnecessarily in future.

This page is ready to go live.

Thanks, Simon.


Simon Jepps wrote on Fri, Aug 6, 2021 06:17 PM UTC:

Hello there Fergus or anyone involved.

I cannot upload a photo for this variant. I get the following error message:

Upload of /home/chessvariants/public_html/membergraphics/MSsej/Sej-Chess-By-SE-Jepps-Photo.png was allowed but failed! The cause of failure is unknown.


13 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.