Point buy armybuilding >Conquistador (Knight T2) [6p] >Vaya con Dios(once)[Free]
Can shift one Pawn or Bishop piece one Square as a Free Action >Hand be gonne(once)[+2p]
May declare an attack against an opponent within Red Tape lenght(because WE GOTTA SELL THAT OVERPRICED PLASTIC). Roll a d4, on pars the enemy dies(can't target royalty or you risk spawning a world wide war). On 1 or 2, your Conquistador also dies(from the gun hilariously exploding on his hand) (FULL TURN ACTION)
Also what board game even does have fog of war? Is it even possible?
Apparently all the things which were added or changed during that 1500 years
This is a midwit expression of an actual issue with chess: lots of people hold it in too high regard and act like intellectuals for playing it. Playing chess is good for you but only if you ignore all that rote memorisation bullshit and focus on adapting to changes and strategy in the face of chanhe
Stratego.
There's also the possibility of having a written log of troop movements and only actually placing them when they are detected, but this would probably require a third party to make sure two off table units don't casually walk through each other undetected. Maybe one side is sneaky and one isn't?
One of the big advantages of video games is automated behind the scenes bookkeeping. A shame we have decided as a society to use this power for anime girl lootboxes.
I've seen a few 1vAll board games have the 1 write their moves on a paper seprate from the board the All are on. Theoretically fog of war could just have everyone do that.
Apparently all the things which were added or changed during that 1500 years
This is a midwit expression of an actual issue with chess: lots of people hold it in too high regard and act like intellectuals for playing it. Playing chess is good for you but only if you ignore all that rote memorisation bullshit and focus on adapting to changes and strategy in the face of chanhe
How can you regard it too highly? It's actually the best tactical boardgame. It's not an exaggeration. The rest are juvenile in comparison. You're right that it would be even moreso if everyone played Fischers variant but it's the best regardless.
He was sprinting at a rate of 2 squares per move screaming about how he was gonna get past them and use their healthcare system to cut his dick off and become the queen.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>use their healthcare system to cut his dick off and become the queen.
Oh my God, chess is troony propaganda? How far back does the pipeline fricking go?
I like the "King has to be captured" variant. Check is possible, but mate isn't a thing. Capture the King. But also the Queen has to revert back to Vizier or it's too strong.
I like some fairy chess pieces, but not most.
Though personally I prefer other strategy games/chess copies. Not shogi or Chinese chess, both have the same issues. Chess started out as a simulation of war, where action and reaction have to be done, where strategy met tactics. And now it's just a bunch of memorization of past games. No one tries to be creative, no one tries new stuff. Not to mention that those at the highest levels have egos the size of the sun. Even if you ask them to do anything actually useful, even cook, or actually useful smart, like math or physics or chemistry, they can't. Bobby Fischer was right about that part. If you want to be "good" at chess you need to waste your life on it.
Play European chess for factions and pieces. Use fairy chess for more pieces. The rest depends. There's a few variants that do each of those. Pick your poison.
https://www.chessvariants.com/multiplayer.dir/europeanchess.html
Captcha: 2GGGK
Where do we go from here to make a Chess-inspired or at least signatured game? One that will inflame man's creativity, and is beyond the known solvability by AI?
Any game with a finite, knowable number of board states is AI-solvable. You would need to implement hidden information, or some other unknowable factor.
>The number of legal board positions in Go has been calculated to be approximately 2.1×10^170,[12][a] which is far greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe, estimated to be of the order of 10^80.[14]
You can't build a computer with enough memory to store a solution to Go.
What difference would the king has to be captured make outside of adding one whole turn?
The variant he's discussing makes two changes.
You can move your own King into check and no one has to call "check" if you do (the onus is on each player to notice it happened).
You can move your King through threatened spaces while castling.
The biggest impact from these changes is that games that would normally draw from a lack of legal moves are now loses for the player who has been given the option of moving into check.
>You can move your own King into check and no one has to call "check" if you do (the onus is on each player to notice it happened).
If your King was in check and your opponent didn't notice you can also remain in check. But it's an equally bad decision.
Only if you're a moron that simultaneously holds every possible board state in memory.
TG isn't just board games. you fricking moronic mongrel. Why do you morons post without even understanding basic game culture?
Black person, RPGs and wargames aren't machine solvable because they don't fit the "open information finite states" definition. What are you even trying to say? You can't even spell the board's fricking name right.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>RPGs and wargames aren't machine solvable because they don't fit the "open information finite states" definition.
Post a solid proof of your idiotic claim, or you're the Black person. AI either can or cannot solve verbal games, but not because you watched a youtube video and thought about it for all of 2 minutes.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I never said that was the exclusive definition. There are probably games that don't meet that definition that are solvable, it just wouldn't be as simple. I also forgot to bring up known random elements like dice as a factor.
Wargames usually have defined win conditions but a non-quantifiable number of board states. Take a game of 40k: A given matchup, on a given table, with given objective cards could be "solved" in the sense that optimal moves could be determined, but it still couldn't account for dice or command points or whatever in their entirety.
Furthermore, you'd have to define what "solving" a given RPG is, given that the goal is entirely arbitrary. A sufficiently complex LLM or whatever may be able to grasp the rules and provide skillful gameplay in a verbal game, but until we have a definition we cannot say it's solvable.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>dice as a factor.
You're a pseud, which isn't news to me. Dice are already AI solved.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Furthermore, you'd have to define what "solving" a given RPG is, given that the goal is entirely arbitrary. A sufficiently complex LLM or whatever may be able to grasp the rules and provide skillful gameplay in a verbal game, but until we have a definition we cannot say it's solvable.
Excuses. If an open ended verbal game has a potential AI response for every iterated state, it's essentially solved. Just because it doesn't have a specific end goal doesn't mean AI won't be able to neutralize every encountered goal.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Only if you're a moron that simultaneously holds every possible board state in memory.
To strongly solve a game you have to provide an optimal move from every possible board state.
You can't build a computer with enough memory to store a solution to Go.
So, >Go can't be solved because the computer has to provide a specific and optimal response to any possible state, and there's more states than any computer could ever calculate!!! No you can't just load fewer board states or only calculate N moves out. >RPGs can be solved because the computer could in theory provide some form of response to any given scenario, of which there are effectively infinite. Trust me bro.
4/10 got me to reply
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Only if you're a moron that simultaneously holds every possible board state in memory.
To strongly solve a game you have to provide an optimal move from every possible board state.
You can't build a computer with enough memory to store a solution to Go.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>optimal move
Why do you homosexuals goalpost like this.
That post said can't solve, now you're adding this specific qualifier.
7 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but having an optimal move for every single imaginable board state possible is what would define solving Go/Chess.
7 months ago
Anonymous
The post was open-ended enough to include solvability toward the end of beating humans, which is has.
[...]
So, >Go can't be solved because the computer has to provide a specific and optimal response to any possible state, and there's more states than any computer could ever calculate!!! No you can't just load fewer board states or only calculate N moves out. >RPGs can be solved because the computer could in theory provide some form of response to any given scenario, of which there are effectively infinite. Trust me bro.
4/10 got me to reply
moron.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Says the one that can't spell /tg/.
7 months ago
Anonymous
TG is different from /tg/. If you don't understand that, I can't help you, you autistic homosexual.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>he post was open-ended enough to include solvability toward the end of beating humans,
Never in my life have I heard that referred to as solving a game.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Go outside autist.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I can't defend myself so I'll personally attack you
Jokes on you I also want to get the last word in.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>The post was open-ended enough to include solvability toward the end of beating humans, which is has
it's crazy you were complaining about moving goalposts.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Go has been solved to that degree you dunce. It's far from moving goalposts. It is the goalpost.
7 months ago
Anonymous
He's calling you a hypocrite for complaining about people retroactively changing the meaning of what you said when are also retroactively changing the meaning of what other people said.
7 months ago
Anonymous
You're an idiot too.
As I said, it's the known goalpost. Strongly solved games aren't even within the scope of this conversation. None of us know enough, and we can't know unless either it happens or proofs of its impossibility are made (which I doubt).
7 months ago
Anonymous
>As I said, it's the known goalpost
I'm not the anon you're arguing with, but this is complete horseshit.
7 months ago
Anonymous
why in ur stupid opinion?
7 months ago
Anonymous
because "solved" in this context has a concrete definition that is widely used amongst circles who are involved with advancing chess bots. you are just completely ignoring that and making your own definition because you don't want to admit you stepped out of your depth in an internet argument.
[...]
But it is solved (at the level of beating humans).
Chess's prestige is in terminal decline since being solved. People don't want to play games that anyone can use a machine to compete unfairly. This is true of bots in RTSs too.
Solving them at the research-strong level isn't even a realistic goal in the immediate future, so it's beyond the scope of this conversation.
You guys aren't real AI researchers, otherwise you would have specified strongly-solved from the start, and you'd be familiar enough with trends to predict and communicate it without being so weird and autistic about it. You just don't want to be wrong. Just admit your failures, and don't act like a stupid fricking nerd next time.
>Solving them at the research-strong level isn't even a realistic goal in the immediate future
Right so it isn't solved
>so it's beyond the scope of this conversation.
have a nice day
7 months ago
Anonymous
>because "solved" in this context has a concrete definition that is widely used amongst circles who are involved with advancing chess bots. you are just completely ignoring that and making your own definition because you don't want to admit you stepped out of your depth in an internet argument.
Prove this claim and prove that beating-humans-solved isn't a valid understanding.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>widely used amongst circles who are involved with advancing chess bots.
And note you're only claiming it's widely used, not universally so. So why didn't anon specify strongly-solved? That makes it their fault for assuming one definition, which just proves they didn't think ahead, and haven't mastered the field enough to adequately communicate it.
7 months ago
Anonymous
nta, "Strongly solved" doesn't mean what you think it means. Chess is neither strongly nor weakly solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Overview >Weak > Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game. >Strong > Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position, even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I saw that. How does a Wikipedia article based on minor citations prove this definition, you absolutely moronic mongrel?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>prove this definition
prove their claim for this definition
7 months ago
Anonymous
If you already read that, what are you arguing about? You are coming across really childish.
7 months ago
Anonymous
No you moron, how is a Wikipedia article authoritative? Depending on how you answer, I may demote you to troony.
7 months ago
Anonymous
You could have discovered that yourself. However that would have required of you the basic computer skill of googling.
Let me help you. Google: > "solved game" weak pdf
This returns a number of results. On my end, the first 4 results are:
1. The wikipedia article. Okay, let's disregard wikipedia for now.
2. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~marijn/publications/solving_games.pdf
3. https://naml.us/paper/irving2014_pentago.pdf
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220174568_Solving_Go_for_Rectangular_Boards
Ctrl-f'ing them for "weak" quickly reveals:
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~marijn/publications/solving_games.pdf >A game is called weakly solved if the value of the start po- >sition is known and a strategy is known which guarantees that the first player >can achieve that value. This means that for example if a game is known to be a >draw, then the first player will never lose. If the opponent makes a mistake, the >first player does not necessarily know a strategy which achieves the win
https://naml.us/paper/irving2014_pentago.pdf >The limit of computer >play is a solved game, when a computer can play perfectly >either from the start position (weakly solved) or from any >position (strongly solved). The first nontrivial weakly solved >game was Connect-Four in 1988 by both Allen and Allis [2], >later strongly solved by Tromp [3]. Many games have been >solved since, the most challenging being the weak solution >of checkers [4].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220174568_Solving_Go_for_Rectangular_Boards >Weakly solved - For the initial position, a strategy has been determined to obtain at least the game-theoretic value
of the game
I hope in the future this post will inspire you to google your questions before asking.
>you absolutely moronic mongrel >I may demote you to troony.
I believe you are currently going through what is known as "malding" due to "butthurt" over losing an online argument.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Absolutely wrecked, towed to the junkyard and crushed into a cube
7 months ago
Anonymous
No, I was baiting because I didn't feel like consolidating the known literature myself.
Thanks for the free labor, chump.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Seems like a cope from go-gays. Now that machines can now regularly beat go masters they're trying to cling to "it's not TECHNICALLY solved!" as if anyone gave a shit about that meaning of solved. "Sure, our best players lose to machines now, but those machine can't actually hold all possible board states in memory at the same time, so, uh, so there!" Nevermind that the human brain can't do that either.
7 months ago
Anonymous
From the perspective of people developing the AI's that play these games, you are completely wrong. A solved game has a very concrete definition which is used regularly in these circles, you morons have just completely gone off what that is and than acting like everyone is being pseuds for sticking to the defacto definition rather than admit you are wrong
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Go *IS* different, it IS it IS it IS a-bloo-bloo-bloo
7 months ago
Anonymous
Go is the gayest real game that exists and everyone who plays it is double gay but you're still moronic if you think it's solved.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Go is the gayest real game that exists and everyone who plays it is double gay but you're still moronic if you think it's solved.
But it is solved (at the level of beating humans).
Chess's prestige is in terminal decline since being solved. People don't want to play games that anyone can use a machine to compete unfairly. This is true of bots in RTSs too.
Solving them at the research-strong level isn't even a realistic goal in the immediate future, so it's beyond the scope of this conversation.
You guys aren't real AI researchers, otherwise you would have specified strongly-solved from the start, and you'd be familiar enough with trends to predict and communicate it without being so weird and autistic about it. You just don't want to be wrong. Just admit your failures, and don't act like a stupid fricking nerd next time.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Strongly solved means solved to the layman. I google "is it solved" and the answer is no. It is you who needs to specify and who is wrong because he didn't.
7 months ago
Anonymous
moronic homosexual
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I googled it, that means I'm right
Can you guys believe this stupid pseud? Way to make yourself look like an idiot.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>verifying your claims makes you a pseud >go has been solved and I know this because I didn't check if anyone solved it
Right..
7 months ago
Anonymous
This isn't moving the goalposts. At worst it's equivocation. There original statement
>The number of legal board positions in Go has been calculated to be approximately 2.1×10^170,[12][a] which is far greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe, estimated to be of the order of 10^80.[14]
You can't build a computer with enough memory to store a solution to Go.
[...]
The variant he's discussing makes two changes.
You can move your own King into check and no one has to call "check" if you do (the onus is on each player to notice it happened).
You can move your King through threatened spaces while castling.
The biggest impact from these changes is that games that would normally draw from a lack of legal moves are now loses for the player who has been given the option of moving into check.
was ambiguous because it didn't specify which meaning of "solved" it was using.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Overview
shogi's piece replacement rule fixes the two main problems of chess, opening theory and draws. Make the pieces three dimensional if you want. Shogi pieces are "simpler" because the piece replacement adds an entirely new wrinkle of complexity to the game.
Also want to add I barely play shogi and play a bunch of chess. But shogi is the better game, I'm just not a weeb so I won't touch it seriously.
Each match is livestreamed, loser must commit honorable suicide. 'Cheating' is allowed, but if your opponent notices and calls you on it before touching a piece he gets to make two consecutive moves. There you go, chess is now the greatest spectator sport of all time.
multiking
Nothing.
Unit upgrades
They have this already. Move your pawn to the back row
Make all the pieces cute girls
IIRC there were at least a couple of porn vidya implementations of chess.
Unlockable skins
Including these
Here you go, take your pick:
https://www.jsbeasley.co.uk/encyc/encyc.pdf
Temporal mechanics.
With the modern rules it's a 400 year old game at most.
Go play Fairy Chess, OP, with a name like that it should suit your big gay energy.
Chess is already gay AF. Why are you making moves on other men?
Classic. Fighting is gay. Brain fighting is gay. I've heard this nonsense before. Tell me you're scrawny and stupid and kiss girls without saying it.
Sex toys
Saving throws
Collectible cards.
Kings should be able to move like queens if its just them + pawns on the board
That sounds like it just makes about every decently played game a draw
buttplug.io integration
Point buy armybuilding
>Conquistador (Knight T2) [6p]
>Vaya con Dios(once)[Free]
Can shift one Pawn or Bishop piece one Square as a Free Action
>Hand be gonne(once)[+2p]
May declare an attack against an opponent within Red Tape lenght(because WE GOTTA SELL THAT OVERPRICED PLASTIC). Roll a d4, on pars the enemy dies(can't target royalty or you risk spawning a world wide war). On 1 or 2, your Conquistador also dies(from the gun hilariously exploding on his hand) (FULL TURN ACTION)
Elon Musk once again proving that he's a dimwit
Considering the phrasing, he might be joking.
Not saying that he can't say unironic stupid shit too.
If it just means gamestate information that players hide from each other, then Battleship, and about every game that uses cards?
Musk derangement syndrome.
Oh come on, Professor! Every time I say something about a public figure you say it's some kind of syndrome!
Derangement derangement syndrome. Afraid it's terminal.
"x derangement syndrome" is basically just a recycled variant of the "U MAD?" meme, used by total morons to dismiss their political opponents.
I hate board games so much.
Also what board game even does have fog of war? Is it even possible?
Stratego.
There's also the possibility of having a written log of troop movements and only actually placing them when they are detected, but this would probably require a third party to make sure two off table units don't casually walk through each other undetected. Maybe one side is sneaky and one isn't?
One of the big advantages of video games is automated behind the scenes bookkeeping. A shame we have decided as a society to use this power for anime girl lootboxes.
Battleship
Catan does if you start with pieces flipped.
I've seen a few 1vAll board games have the 1 write their moves on a paper seprate from the board the All are on. Theoretically fog of war could just have everyone do that.
I mean, look. He's not wrong.
>no fog of war
He's right about this one, no hidden information is why chess is shit.
Apparently all the things which were added or changed during that 1500 years
This is a midwit expression of an actual issue with chess: lots of people hold it in too high regard and act like intellectuals for playing it. Playing chess is good for you but only if you ignore all that rote memorisation bullshit and focus on adapting to changes and strategy in the face of chanhe
How can you regard it too highly? It's actually the best tactical boardgame. It's not an exaggeration. The rest are juvenile in comparison. You're right that it would be even moreso if everyone played Fischers variant but it's the best regardless.
This is hilarious, but polytopia is actually based and I’m surprised this c**t browsed its wiki enough to describe it accurately.
Instead of saying checkmate you slap the opposing player in the face.
I make it white vs green pieces. Removing blacks makes everything better.
These blacks have 0% crime rate and live in their own nation, genius.
They're at war with whites, and that means genocide is required.
White started it.
By what? Having a simple farmer moving towards their kingdom?
>farmer
Pawns are pikemen.
>t. butthurt pawn
Get back to the field, farmer.
He was sprinting at a rate of 2 squares per move screaming about how he was gonna get past them and use their healthcare system to cut his dick off and become the queen.
>use their healthcare system to cut his dick off and become the queen.
Oh my God, chess is troony propaganda? How far back does the pipeline fricking go?
Honestly i prefer games with hidden information in general but I'm not going to pretend that would make chess better.
Just more fun for me.
There is fog of war chess. You can only see squares that your pieces can move to.
I really like Hive, as a not-chess game.
I really do too, but I always play with homebrew spider rules. (up to 3 move, beetles cannot climb on top spiders).
Chess 2: The Sequel is really good. I don't like the dueling mechanic, but everything else is great.
En passant
Cognac
You get to paint the pieces so they're /yourdudes/.
Pinkamena's shirts are a bit too loose. Nothing more to add.
>TQ
More factions
More units
Expanded rules for close combat
Ranged attacks
Terrain
A morale system
Command friction
I like the "King has to be captured" variant. Check is possible, but mate isn't a thing. Capture the King. But also the Queen has to revert back to Vizier or it's too strong.
I like some fairy chess pieces, but not most.
Though personally I prefer other strategy games/chess copies. Not shogi or Chinese chess, both have the same issues. Chess started out as a simulation of war, where action and reaction have to be done, where strategy met tactics. And now it's just a bunch of memorization of past games. No one tries to be creative, no one tries new stuff. Not to mention that those at the highest levels have egos the size of the sun. Even if you ask them to do anything actually useful, even cook, or actually useful smart, like math or physics or chemistry, they can't. Bobby Fischer was right about that part. If you want to be "good" at chess you need to waste your life on it.
Play European chess for factions and pieces. Use fairy chess for more pieces. The rest depends. There's a few variants that do each of those. Pick your poison.
https://www.chessvariants.com/multiplayer.dir/europeanchess.html
Captcha: 2GGGK
Only smart post I saw ITT.
Where do we go from here to make a Chess-inspired or at least signatured game? One that will inflame man's creativity, and is beyond the known solvability by AI?
Any game with a finite, knowable number of board states is AI-solvable. You would need to implement hidden information, or some other unknowable factor.
TG isn't just board games. you fricking moronic mongrel. Why do you morons post without even understanding basic game culture?
>The number of legal board positions in Go has been calculated to be approximately 2.1×10^170,[12][a] which is far greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe, estimated to be of the order of 10^80.[14]
You can't build a computer with enough memory to store a solution to Go.
The variant he's discussing makes two changes.
You can move your own King into check and no one has to call "check" if you do (the onus is on each player to notice it happened).
You can move your King through threatened spaces while castling.
The biggest impact from these changes is that games that would normally draw from a lack of legal moves are now loses for the player who has been given the option of moving into check.
>You can move your own King into check and no one has to call "check" if you do (the onus is on each player to notice it happened).
If your King was in check and your opponent didn't notice you can also remain in check. But it's an equally bad decision.
go has been vanquished. get over it nerd.
Only if you're a moron that simultaneously holds every possible board state in memory.
Black person, RPGs and wargames aren't machine solvable because they don't fit the "open information finite states" definition. What are you even trying to say? You can't even spell the board's fricking name right.
>RPGs and wargames aren't machine solvable because they don't fit the "open information finite states" definition.
Post a solid proof of your idiotic claim, or you're the Black person. AI either can or cannot solve verbal games, but not because you watched a youtube video and thought about it for all of 2 minutes.
I never said that was the exclusive definition. There are probably games that don't meet that definition that are solvable, it just wouldn't be as simple. I also forgot to bring up known random elements like dice as a factor.
Wargames usually have defined win conditions but a non-quantifiable number of board states. Take a game of 40k: A given matchup, on a given table, with given objective cards could be "solved" in the sense that optimal moves could be determined, but it still couldn't account for dice or command points or whatever in their entirety.
Furthermore, you'd have to define what "solving" a given RPG is, given that the goal is entirely arbitrary. A sufficiently complex LLM or whatever may be able to grasp the rules and provide skillful gameplay in a verbal game, but until we have a definition we cannot say it's solvable.
>dice as a factor.
You're a pseud, which isn't news to me. Dice are already AI solved.
>Furthermore, you'd have to define what "solving" a given RPG is, given that the goal is entirely arbitrary. A sufficiently complex LLM or whatever may be able to grasp the rules and provide skillful gameplay in a verbal game, but until we have a definition we cannot say it's solvable.
Excuses. If an open ended verbal game has a potential AI response for every iterated state, it's essentially solved. Just because it doesn't have a specific end goal doesn't mean AI won't be able to neutralize every encountered goal.
So,
>Go can't be solved because the computer has to provide a specific and optimal response to any possible state, and there's more states than any computer could ever calculate!!! No you can't just load fewer board states or only calculate N moves out.
>RPGs can be solved because the computer could in theory provide some form of response to any given scenario, of which there are effectively infinite. Trust me bro.
4/10 got me to reply
>Only if you're a moron that simultaneously holds every possible board state in memory.
To strongly solve a game you have to provide an optimal move from every possible board state.
You can't build a computer with enough memory to store a solution to Go.
>optimal move
Why do you homosexuals goalpost like this.
That post said can't solve, now you're adding this specific qualifier.
NTA but having an optimal move for every single imaginable board state possible is what would define solving Go/Chess.
The post was open-ended enough to include solvability toward the end of beating humans, which is has.
moron.
Says the one that can't spell /tg/.
TG is different from /tg/. If you don't understand that, I can't help you, you autistic homosexual.
>he post was open-ended enough to include solvability toward the end of beating humans,
Never in my life have I heard that referred to as solving a game.
Go outside autist.
>I can't defend myself so I'll personally attack you
Jokes on you I also want to get the last word in.
>The post was open-ended enough to include solvability toward the end of beating humans, which is has
it's crazy you were complaining about moving goalposts.
Go has been solved to that degree you dunce. It's far from moving goalposts. It is the goalpost.
He's calling you a hypocrite for complaining about people retroactively changing the meaning of what you said when are also retroactively changing the meaning of what other people said.
You're an idiot too.
As I said, it's the known goalpost. Strongly solved games aren't even within the scope of this conversation. None of us know enough, and we can't know unless either it happens or proofs of its impossibility are made (which I doubt).
>As I said, it's the known goalpost
I'm not the anon you're arguing with, but this is complete horseshit.
why in ur stupid opinion?
because "solved" in this context has a concrete definition that is widely used amongst circles who are involved with advancing chess bots. you are just completely ignoring that and making your own definition because you don't want to admit you stepped out of your depth in an internet argument.
>Solving them at the research-strong level isn't even a realistic goal in the immediate future
Right so it isn't solved
>so it's beyond the scope of this conversation.
have a nice day
>because "solved" in this context has a concrete definition that is widely used amongst circles who are involved with advancing chess bots. you are just completely ignoring that and making your own definition because you don't want to admit you stepped out of your depth in an internet argument.
Prove this claim and prove that beating-humans-solved isn't a valid understanding.
>widely used amongst circles who are involved with advancing chess bots.
And note you're only claiming it's widely used, not universally so. So why didn't anon specify strongly-solved? That makes it their fault for assuming one definition, which just proves they didn't think ahead, and haven't mastered the field enough to adequately communicate it.
nta, "Strongly solved" doesn't mean what you think it means. Chess is neither strongly nor weakly solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Overview
>Weak
> Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game.
>Strong
> Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position, even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides.
I saw that. How does a Wikipedia article based on minor citations prove this definition, you absolutely moronic mongrel?
>prove this definition
prove their claim for this definition
If you already read that, what are you arguing about? You are coming across really childish.
No you moron, how is a Wikipedia article authoritative? Depending on how you answer, I may demote you to troony.
You could have discovered that yourself. However that would have required of you the basic computer skill of googling.
Let me help you. Google:
> "solved game" weak pdf
This returns a number of results. On my end, the first 4 results are:
1. The wikipedia article. Okay, let's disregard wikipedia for now.
2. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~marijn/publications/solving_games.pdf
3. https://naml.us/paper/irving2014_pentago.pdf
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220174568_Solving_Go_for_Rectangular_Boards
Ctrl-f'ing them for "weak" quickly reveals:
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~marijn/publications/solving_games.pdf
>A game is called weakly solved if the value of the start po-
>sition is known and a strategy is known which guarantees that the first player
>can achieve that value. This means that for example if a game is known to be a
>draw, then the first player will never lose. If the opponent makes a mistake, the
>first player does not necessarily know a strategy which achieves the win
https://naml.us/paper/irving2014_pentago.pdf
>The limit of computer
>play is a solved game, when a computer can play perfectly
>either from the start position (weakly solved) or from any
>position (strongly solved). The first nontrivial weakly solved
>game was Connect-Four in 1988 by both Allen and Allis [2],
>later strongly solved by Tromp [3]. Many games have been
>solved since, the most challenging being the weak solution
>of checkers [4].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220174568_Solving_Go_for_Rectangular_Boards
>Weakly solved - For the initial position, a strategy has been determined to obtain at least the game-theoretic value
of the game
I hope in the future this post will inspire you to google your questions before asking.
>you absolutely moronic mongrel
>I may demote you to troony.
I believe you are currently going through what is known as "malding" due to "butthurt" over losing an online argument.
Absolutely wrecked, towed to the junkyard and crushed into a cube
No, I was baiting because I didn't feel like consolidating the known literature myself.
Thanks for the free labor, chump.
Seems like a cope from go-gays. Now that machines can now regularly beat go masters they're trying to cling to "it's not TECHNICALLY solved!" as if anyone gave a shit about that meaning of solved. "Sure, our best players lose to machines now, but those machine can't actually hold all possible board states in memory at the same time, so, uh, so there!" Nevermind that the human brain can't do that either.
From the perspective of people developing the AI's that play these games, you are completely wrong. A solved game has a very concrete definition which is used regularly in these circles, you morons have just completely gone off what that is and than acting like everyone is being pseuds for sticking to the defacto definition rather than admit you are wrong
>Go *IS* different, it IS it IS it IS a-bloo-bloo-bloo
Go is the gayest real game that exists and everyone who plays it is double gay but you're still moronic if you think it's solved.
But it is solved (at the level of beating humans).
Chess's prestige is in terminal decline since being solved. People don't want to play games that anyone can use a machine to compete unfairly. This is true of bots in RTSs too.
Solving them at the research-strong level isn't even a realistic goal in the immediate future, so it's beyond the scope of this conversation.
You guys aren't real AI researchers, otherwise you would have specified strongly-solved from the start, and you'd be familiar enough with trends to predict and communicate it without being so weird and autistic about it. You just don't want to be wrong. Just admit your failures, and don't act like a stupid fricking nerd next time.
Strongly solved means solved to the layman. I google "is it solved" and the answer is no. It is you who needs to specify and who is wrong because he didn't.
moronic homosexual
>I googled it, that means I'm right
Can you guys believe this stupid pseud? Way to make yourself look like an idiot.
>verifying your claims makes you a pseud
>go has been solved and I know this because I didn't check if anyone solved it
Right..
This isn't moving the goalposts. At worst it's equivocation. There original statement
was ambiguous because it didn't specify which meaning of "solved" it was using.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Overview
What difference would the king has to be captured make outside of adding one whole turn?
Blind buy booster packs.
basically shogi
Shogi piece movements are a lot less elegant. And all the pieces look BORING and UGLY
shogi's piece replacement rule fixes the two main problems of chess, opening theory and draws. Make the pieces three dimensional if you want. Shogi pieces are "simpler" because the piece replacement adds an entirely new wrinkle of complexity to the game.
Also want to add I barely play shogi and play a bunch of chess. But shogi is the better game, I'm just not a weeb so I won't touch it seriously.
I don't remember these pieces being in Chess 2.
Rules for building custom army lists of pieces, which need point values
Then a deployment phase so we can arrange them how we want
waifus
The ability to kill people who ask stupid questions through an internet connection.
ask bobby fischer.
Buttplugs, apparently
add a more game modern UI
I'll probably do that if they asked me since i have enough experience from working at ubisoft for like 5 years
maybe add control points like warhammer
Pic related
>I was only pretending
>>>/b/ is thataway newbie
Sorry bucko, you got used.
I'm not even that guy
Genuinely tho go play on the interstate
Then my post is still to him.
There's no saving face for him tbh.
Btw I'm not the anons you were talking with before 🙂
fischer random
randomized (but mirrored) starting position
Each match is livestreamed, loser must commit honorable suicide. 'Cheating' is allowed, but if your opponent notices and calls you on it before touching a piece he gets to make two consecutive moves. There you go, chess is now the greatest spectator sport of all time.