lichess.org
Donate

Quantum Superposition Chess: new simple variant idea

Dear chess players,
I'm a physicist and recently came up with an interesting idea on
how to play an amusing chess game with rules borrowed by quantum mechanics in a simple way.
I call this Quantum Superposition Chess (QSC).
Superposition is a concept by which quantum objects can be in a mixture of possible states, until a measure is performed (famous is the Schroedinger's cat gedanken experiment: the cat in the box is at the same time dead and alive until you open the box and observe).
This variant is somehow different from other similar quantum based ideas around, basically since it is much simpler.

Rules are in fact simple and simple to implement.
The key rule is the 4a below.

1) Pieces and pawns move as in the classic game
1a) the starting line up is the same as in classical chess

2) one side wins by one of the following possibilities:
2a) checkmating enemy's king,
2b) capturing enemy's king,
2c) stalemating the opponent (i.e., the opponent has got no valid moves);

3) Kings and pawns always remain kings and pawns respectively
(except pawn promotion, see below), i.e. do not change their identity;

4) when one piece is touched it may change its identity based on a probability rule:
4a) its identity is chosen with a probability proportional to the inverse of its conventional pawn value.
Suppose we agree on these set of values: Q=10, K=B=3, R=5 then the probability to become Q is 1/10 / (1/10+1/3+1/3+1/5) = 3/29, to become K is 10/29, to become B is also 10/29 and to become R is 6/29.
4aa) if the randomness of point 4a is too disturbing, though surely funny, one could have a sort of "temperature" parameter in the form of a probability of the piece not changing at all. Say for example, we decide that with probability p=1/2 the touched piece does not change identity: we first decide with a coin flip whether to apply rule 4a for the touched piece. When p=1 the game is almost identical to conventional chess (it is not strictly identical because of rules 2b and above all 2c).

5) pawn promotion is handled in the usual way and the chosen piece will behave like all others in subsequent moves;

6) when a piece in its new identity has got no legal moves, another piece (or pawn) must be moved until a legal move is possible. If it happens that after cycling through your pieces you do not get any legal move (a quite rare event), the match is lost: you fell down a quantum trap.

7) this is not a rule but a consequence of rules 4 and 6: you may change the identity of lots of your pieces at the very beginning of a match: suppose you wish to play your rook as your first move, so you touch it. Only if it transforms into a knight it can be played otherwise you can go on touching other pieces until you get at least a valid move with that piece. In case no one has transformed into a knight (roughly happens with probability (1-10/29)^7 = 5.2%), you must move a pawn.

Hope you like the idea :)
VDPS
I don't like the idea of a chess variant being a game of chance.

Notes:
K = king, N = knight
The most common value given to the queen is 9.
Thanks for the comment!
Here the new probabilities follow:
Assume now Q=9, B=N=3, R=5 then
p(Q)=5/44, p(N)=p(B)=15/44, p(R)=9/44

It is chance, but controllable, like in real life (well, real life is much worse since you do not have a finite number of possibilities).
And this is in fact the essence of quantum mechanics.
:)
<Comment deleted by user>
Are you really a physicist ? I don't see any link between these probabilities and quantum mechanics.

There is never a point in your rules where a piece can be in 2 states, captured and not captured, in 2 squares at the same time, etc.

Hi Leek, of course it is not "strict" QM, it only conveys the idea of a superposition of states, but only when the piece is touched, i.e, when it is in the air.
If you wish, being on a square and interacting with other figures selects your state since it's the result of a kind of measure due to the fact that you're observed by others.
It sounds fine, I do not see contradictions with QM, specifically the Copenhagen interpretation.
An electron is in a superposition of spin up and down (e.g. when it is "in the air"), until it is measured (observed), and this is my point with chess figures too.
What is wrong? Tell me please since I'll have to re-write a couple of my books in that case ;)
@yanez now I understand :) I needed more explanation I guess :) Thank you for these clarifications ! :)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.