Stones system.

[Griffin]

I personally like the idea of making chess less about memory through multiple match-ups and the psychology of the stones, but something irks me about the way the betting system is played. I feel that the mid-game double-blind system hurts the perfect information system of chess. I was considering what other options could exist that make the game varied without changing anything drastically or unbalancing the game. This is just an idea, and I was wondering what people thought of it in comparison to the current system:



*At the start of the game, a single die is rolled. Both players start with that many stones.
*When a piece would be taken, the defender can wager a stone to take the opponent's piece, the opponent can wager 2 to stop it, the defender can then bring their wager up to 3, and so on until a player refuses to out-bet their opponent.
*The winner only loses all stones they wagered. If the defender wins, the attacker loses their piece. If the attacker wins, no change.
*A stone is gained when a pawn is taken.

I personally prefer the way that this reduces the guessing involved in the double-blind situation of the current system and makes the players estimate how many stones their opponent values their piece, to make them lose as many as possible. The die roll should also keep enough variation to stop play books being possible, but doesn't introduce randomness after the start of the game.

Is there any advantage in using this system over the current one? Am I making myself look stupid? Discuss anyway.

[vivafringe]

I'm not sure I like the current bidding system either ("it's not chess!"), but it is certainly better than your proposed system. I roll a 1, you roll a 6, I lose. That is pretty bad, especially since in theory I have to now play an hour long game to bear out that fact (in reality I would just concede and go play another game).

If you add die rolling to chess, it's going to somehow need to avoid random screwage.

[ChadMiller]

I don't understand how this is supposed to make you estimate how much the opponent values their piece if you can just safely increment by 1 over and over

[Griffin]

Originally Posted by vivafringe

I'm not sure I like the current bidding system either ("it's not chess!"), but it is certainly better than your proposed system. I roll a 1, you roll a 6, I lose. That is pretty bad, especially since in theory I have to now play an hour long game to bear out that fact (in reality I would just concede and go play another game).

If you add die rolling to chess, it's going to somehow need to avoid random screwage.

1 die is rolled to determine the amount both players get, not one each.

Originally Posted by ChadMiller

I don't understand how this is supposed to make you estimate how much the opponent values their piece if you can just safely increment by 1 over and over

Example situation:
Rook takes pawn.

Defender puts in 1 stone.
The attacker can spend 2 stones if they think the rook is worth it - that would make them lose 2 stones, and the defender not lose the 1 they just wagered, meaning they give the rook a total value of 3 stones at that point, and so on. You could also add a stone if you think your opponent over-values a unit, to make them lose an even larger amount to protect/remove it.

Again, just a thought ^_^

[Logo]

It's a neat idea, it does fit well with the themes of evaluation over blind mind games. The double blind system seemed very "not chess" to me as well.
Is it fair how it ends though? If we have 3 stones each and I'm the attacker I can't win the duel if my opponent goes to 3 even though we both have the same # of stones and with 4 stones each I can't lose if I go to 4.

[Sirlin]

I don't like the proposed system because it's aiming for the opposite of what I'm aiming for. It maintains complete information, does not add hidden information, and does not add any element of bluffing or mind-games. Every one of those points is a negative to me. I understand that those points are a positive to the original poster, but not to me.

Next, I think the line about how the proposed system does not add randomness after the start of the game is a bit misleading. Yes the proposed system does not add randomness, but the current system does not "add randomness" either. We really need some sort of word for this concept, because it comes up a fair amount. Actual randomness is like die rolling or flipping coins (and can be a negative or positive, depending on specifics), but the variation in play added from double-blind guessing in Chess2, in Yomi card game, or in Street Fighter should not be classified as "randomness." It's a desirable property that changes the course of play based on decisions and predictions, but "randomness" isn't a proper label.

I will say that the proposed system does sound like it would be good if we actually wanted a perfect information game, but it seems like literally the first item on the list in making an update to chess should be "does not have perfect information," at least to me. Also I'll say that the proposed system probably has better game flow. Well it does have more back and forth on each bid, which might be slower game flow actually, but it doesn't require the logistics of hiding stones in your hand.

Anyway I still prefer the current system and actively WANT hidden information and the ability to bluff and out-yomi and so on.

[Sage]

"non-deterministic"

[Domon]

Next, I think the line about how the proposed system does not add randomness after the start of the game is a bit misleading. Yes the proposed system does not add randomness, but the current system does not "add randomness" either. We really need some sort of word for this concept, because it comes up a fair amount. Actual randomness is like die rolling or flipping coins (and can be a negative or positive, depending on specifics), but the variation in play added from double-blind guessing in Chess2, in Yomi card game, or in Street Fighter should not be classified as "randomness." It's a desirable property that changes the course of play based on decisions and predictions, but "randomness" isn't a proper label.

Unpredictability. that's the term

[DredNicolson]

'Uncertainty' is a better term for it, in my estimation.

Yomi the game has uncertainty at two levels. On one level you are uncertain about what move your opponent will choose each turn, and on the other level you are (usually) uncertain about what moves your opponent actually has to choose from each turn, due to the constantly shifting composition of hands.

The bidding system in Chess2 adds one level of uncertainty to the game. While you are 100% certain about what options your opponent has (bidding 0, 1, or 2 stones with X stones remaining), you are uncertain about which option he will choose.

[ARMed_PIrate]

For what it's worth, I think most people who like Chess, and would be interested in Chess 2.0, enjoy the complete information aspect of the game.

I think people who don't like Chess won't be interested in in Chess 2.0, period.

Tangent: I knew a couple of guys who created Chess++ years ago. It was computer-based Chess, ideally for an eventual online environment, with fog of war. You could only see the spaces with your pieces, and those where your pieces could move. It was interesting; it certainly changed the game a lot (and was a good use of the quasi-rule, "If you're making a video game, make sure it does something that can only be done in a video game"). But then lack of information was _the_ gimmick.

I think with the asymmetry of learning all of the different teams, and the valuation of the bidding system proposed above, you've got more than enough to spice things up. I think this is one place where the double-blind doesn't make the game more fun (for the people who will be playing it).