- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Introducing MoleChess, where playing badly is often the best move

#41

@Wisherwood said in #40:

on-board eval gauges? You can't be seriously recommending this. No format should include this because people will want it in standard..

I was dismissing a counter example. Because it has been tried in some recent event in some time pressure variant of standard chess, so that those not players of chess themselves could still spectate. My syntax might have had the better of my intent.

The temptation for the spectacle value of gladiators doing things "invisible" on some board might already be there. I meant that mole chess might have the same spectacle appeal as poker and hence it might have been for the spectacle value we already know for other bluffing games, that this came out. But my refection was about why the simpler game of cooperative-competitive team chess was less appealing. And proposed a diagnostic hypothesis, about trusting messages among many.

And the cheat thing.. Might language help fix that problem? (and logic supported by it, which might have helped cooperation through reasoning among many in other aspects of human cultural evolution, let's call that reasoning as it might not be modern logic purer flow of proof methodology, but we do have some ability to build reasoning together, sometimes even with incomplete data at hand).

I might try a third iteration, and it might be the charm (really, not offended by the misreading, it comes with my attempt to express some type of thinking that is my groove, but difficult to share).

@Wisherwood said in #40: > on-board eval gauges? You can't be seriously recommending this. No format should include this because people will want it in standard.. I was dismissing a counter example. Because it has been tried in some recent event in some time pressure variant of standard chess, so that those not players of chess themselves could still spectate. My syntax might have had the better of my intent. The temptation for the spectacle value of gladiators doing things "invisible" on some board might already be there. I meant that mole chess might have the same spectacle appeal as poker and hence it might have been for the spectacle value we already know for other bluffing games, that this came out. But my refection was about why the simpler game of cooperative-competitive team chess was less appealing. And proposed a diagnostic hypothesis, about trusting messages among many. And the cheat thing.. Might language help fix that problem? (and logic supported by it, which might have helped cooperation through reasoning among many in other aspects of human cultural evolution, let's call that reasoning as it might not be modern logic purer flow of proof methodology, but we do have some ability to build reasoning together, sometimes even with incomplete data at hand). I might try a third iteration, and it might be the charm (really, not offended by the misreading, it comes with my attempt to express some type of thinking that is my groove, but difficult to share).
#43

If playing badly is the good move and that means losing equals winning . So the lower your rating the higher your rank ? ?

If playing badly is the good move and that means losing equals winning . So the lower your rating the higher your rank ? ?
#45

Btw, I really like the idea of MoleChess also just supporting regular team chess as well. I'm working on adding that as an option.

  • Zug
Btw, I really like the idea of MoleChess also just supporting regular team chess as well. I'm working on adding that as an option. - Zug
#46
<Comment deleted by user>
#47

Can't find enough players. What if interested players try to meet at some weekday/time?
Or may we could create a team to arrange it (an idea by another fellow interested in playing: polylogarithmique )

Can't find enough players. What if interested players try to meet at some weekday/time? Or may we could create a team to arrange it (an idea by another fellow interested in playing: polylogarithmique )
#49
<Comment deleted by user>