Psychologic (McGoohan - cobra91)

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.

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

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. 

"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.

1...e6

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

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.

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

I reject e6

Rejection noted.

1...d5

2. Qh5 ?

^ I'll be rejecting that move.

2. Qg4

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.

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.

3. Qxg7?

3...Qf6?

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.

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!

4. Qxf6?

4...Nxf6?

No!