Psychologic (McGoohan - cobra91)

• 

  cobra91
  #1 14 days ago

  This is an open invitation to play a chess variant called "Psychologic". Anyone can accept this invitation by simply posting a comment with their first move.

  Rules can be found here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/psychologic-amazing-chess-variant

  Two details which should be clarified:

  1. A player with only one legal move loses, assuming the opponent rejects that move.
  2. A player with no legal move still draws (by stalemate), as long as that player's king is not in check.

  I'll play as Black. The first person to make a move (for White) will play as White for the remainder of the game. Also, once the first move has been played, I can update the thread title to show who is playing as White in this particular game.

• 

  vickalan
  #2 14 days ago
  Hi cobra91, I have a proposition. How about we play "The World" against the "computer".

  You are the leader of the world. Anyone can comment and make suggestions, but engine assistance is not allowed. You make the final decision, and declare the World's move.

  I play the computer's move (chess.com's engine Level 10). I always play what the computer tells me to play. (If you reject a move, I have to replay the move until the computer makes a different choice, going down levels if necessary).

   

  Your side has the advantage that the computer is playing real chess, not the variant, so maybe the world can outwit him.

   

  My side has the advantage that I have a computer, so the first (and second) moves will usually be very good (based on chess).

   

  If you and the World don't accept this challenge, then just disregard this message.😒

   

  If you and the World accept this, the engine plays😈:

  1.e4

   
• 

  cobra91
  #3 14 days ago
  vickalan wrote:

  Hi cobra91, I have a proposition. How about we play "The World" against the "computer".

  [...]

  I would certainly have considered, and possibly accepted, such a proposal if not for one major issue:

  [...] 

  My side has the advantage that I have a computer, so the first (and second) moves will usually be very good (based on chess).

  I think you're severely underestimating the differences between Psychologic and normal chess, especially in terms of dynamic and combinational play. Fundamentally, they have absolutely nothing in common, because the rules of Psychologic alter the nature of turn-based play itself (which is the most fundamental characteristic of standard chess, and virtually all chess variants). As a result, engine moves would not fare significantly better than those of an RMG (random move generator).

  Don't take my word for it, though - try a few games yourself, and you'll see what I mean. 

  [...] 

  If you and the World don't accept this challenge, then just disregard this message.

  "The World" (as you defined it) consists of just me at the moment, so on behalf of "the World", I'll politely decline the challenge (primarily on account of the above explanation).

  So, the invitation is still open for anyone to accept, by making White's first move.

• 

  McGoohan
  #4 14 days ago
  1.e4
• 

  cobra91
  #5 13 days ago

  1...e6

  I've edited the thread title. No more question marks! 

• 

  vickalan
  #6 13 days ago
  cobra91 wrote:

  The World" (as you defined it) consists of just me at the moment...

   

  Lol - this Battle of "the world" vs. "computer"  didn't go as exptected.

  I was getting ready to give my cpu a name, like Global-Chess-Obliterator.

   

  I still think that a computer can play well at this game up to a point. In a chess opening, there's 20 possible moves (call this "x" = 20). Here one can be rejected, so in this game you have 19 choices ("x" = 19). When x is large (like 10 or more) I can't believe either computers or humans can detect a difference in strategy. There's no way to know what the end-game setup will be. But when x is 5 or less, discerning a better line for this variant might be possible (so the engine might start to falter). When x is 3 and then 2, the chess engine will surely go completelly wrong (or at least act randomly like you said).

  So I still believe a computer can still do very well at this game until at least the mid-game. If the neither side has an advantage at this point, a human may start to have an advantage.

  I do understand for sure the endgame will be completelly different. There's a big difference between 2 choices and 1 (x = 2, and x = 1) and at x = 1 the game is essentially ended (when otherwise play can go on). I guess on average this game will finish sooner? But AnnChess2 didn't think so - then won a game in 14 moves.

   

  Anyway, if I have time maybe I'll play the winner of McGoohan vs. Cobra91, and then I'll understand the game better.

   

   

• 

  McGoohan
  #7 12 days ago
  cobra91 hat geschrieben:

  1...e6

  I've edited the thread title. No more question marks! 

  I reject e6

• 

  cobra91
  #8 12 days ago

  Rejection noted.

  1...d5

• 

  McGoohan
  #9 11 days ago

  2. Qh5 ?

• 

  cobra91
  #10 11 days ago

  ^ I'll be rejecting that move.

• 

  McGoohan
  #11 11 days ago

  2. Qg4

• 

  cobra91
  #12 10 days ago

  2...Qd6?

  I suppose the '?' is needed to indicate that a move can be rejected. From now on, I'll try to remember to only omit the '?' for moves that cannot be rejected, and to include it for all other moves.

• 

  cashcow8
  #13 10 days ago

  The computer will reject moves that have one obvious counter assuming the opponent will play the best move. However we know our opponent can't play their best move, only their 2nd best move.

  So I also think a human would beat the computer here rather easily.

   

• 

  McGoohan
  #14 9 days ago

  3. Qxg7?

• 

  cobra91
  #15 8 days ago

  3...Qf6?

• 

  cobra91
  #16 8 days ago
  cashcow8 wrote:

  The computer will reject moves that have one obvious counter assuming the opponent will play the best move. However we know our opponent can't play their best move, only their 2nd best move.

  Precisely! This is a perfect explanation for those who may be unfamiliar with game theory.

  Of course, from a game-theoretical perspective, the differences between Psychologic and normal chess are much more fundamental. Altering the nature of move selection has a profound influence on how things like "best move" or "2nd-best move" are defined and determined. The effect is so powerful, in fact, that any similarity in gameplay which Psychologic appears to have with standard chess must be nothing more than coincidence.

• 

  vickalan
  #17 8 days ago

  I think you guys are probably right, but I haven't been able to absolutely prove it in my mind. My premise (possible but don't know for sure) is that a good board position in normal chess will also be a good board position in psychologic. (like equivalent to the starting setup in chess which is a tie as far as we know).  I tried to analyze the game between AnnChess2 vs EvertVB to see if the computer would go astray. I'll post the results there so I don't clutter your game. Have fun!

• 

  McGoohan
  #18 6 days ago

  4. Qxf6?

• 

  cobra91
  #19 5 days ago

  4...Nxf6?

• 

  McGoohan
  #20 4 days ago

  No!