Author Topic: Chess DAC  (Read 14451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

I would probably integrate this into a overall "games" DAC that would support several different games all at once.

1) all games / buyin /  payout would be done using BitGLD or BitSLV as the internal currency
2) all fees earned by the games would be paid as yield on BitGLD and BitSLV
3) Chess, Go, Checkers, Bingo, Lotto, Simulated Horse Racing, etc...

Now what is the best DAC for holding GLD and SLV?   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline serejandmyself

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Ok makes more sence now you say what is the purpose, but then wouldn't there be more point to call it something else rather then chess as it is? Maybe, multi player chess or gamblers chess, gambling chess, chance chess etc.

@busygin - but then again, if its purpose is gambling i doubt this will bring out major chess talents like kasparov )))) in any case me and you will give it a try for a few btsx if you want  ;)

p.s. @ BM - what about making a DAC like i said for intelectual table games, is there a need in such a thing?

btsx - bitsharesrussia

busygin

  • Guest
I really dont undersatnd how can you as a chess player say this is more exiting....

I didn't mean more exciting than human chess tournaments, I meant that it would spice up computer chess. It a serious business now as professional chess players spend most of the time working with computer programs anyway. And running top programs against each other is exciting for chess algorithm experts.
BTW, there are still certain moments in chess when humans are better than computers (positional play when there is no tactics and endgames when calculation horizon is too big). So, correspondence chess games (when a human has 2-3 days to make a move and full access to computer assistance) are considered of better quality than pure computer games. So, I'm really curious to see what kind of chess level this DAC will lead to...

Offline bytemaster

As a chess master myself and someone who knows a great deal about how chess algorithms work, I find this exciting! There is Computer Chess World Championship and other computer chess tournaments. But ultimately it will become like the race in mining - huge data centers requiring exotic cooling  ;).
Maybe we also run a DAC for some more useful hard computational problem, like protein folding?

Sounds nice, but I think it won't take long before automated chess bots take over the votes for the next move.

Yes... but you are still betting on a team and the there would be a level of unpredictability.

I really dont undersatnd how can you as a chess player say this is more exiting.... This is a good idea, that needs to be developed - YES.
Its new and cool - yes.
But, th epoint of a game of chess is an intulectual duel between 2 people - period. Nothing can be more exiting that this. If more than 2 people plya then i dont know if i outwitted my oponent or the 20 other people playing along with me. If we all outwitted him, then its not as exiting for me to know that....

Dont get me wrong, im not against it, just dont understand (not the works of it) the point for now - apart form a new type of game. Multi chess if you like. But cant see it being a store of value for now

The target audience is gamblers who want something a bit more engaging than variations on dice.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Riverhead

Open source bots, battle hardened in the betting pits of DAC Chess, take on Big Blue!

Offline serejandmyself

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
As a chess master myself and someone who knows a great deal about how chess algorithms work, I find this exciting! There is Computer Chess World Championship and other computer chess tournaments. But ultimately it will become like the race in mining - huge data centers requiring exotic cooling  ;).
Maybe we also run a DAC for some more useful hard computational problem, like protein folding?

Sounds nice, but I think it won't take long before automated chess bots take over the votes for the next move.

Yes... but you are still betting on a team and the there would be a level of unpredictability.

I really dont undersatnd how can you as a chess player say this is more exiting.... This is a good idea, that needs to be developed - YES.
Its new and cool - yes.
But, th epoint of a game of chess is an intulectual duel between 2 people - period. Nothing can be more exiting that this. If more than 2 people plya then i dont know if i outwitted my oponent or the 20 other people playing along with me. If we all outwitted him, then its not as exiting for me to know that....

Dont get me wrong, im not against it, just dont understand (not the works of it) the point for now - apart form a new type of game. Multi chess if you like. But cant see it being a store of value for now
btsx - bitsharesrussia

busygin

  • Guest
As a chess master myself and someone who knows a great deal about how chess algorithms work, I find this exciting! There is Computer Chess World Championship and other computer chess tournaments. But ultimately it will become like the race in mining - huge data centers requiring exotic cooling  ;).
Maybe we also run a DAC for some more useful hard computational problem, like protein folding?

Sounds nice, but I think it won't take long before automated chess bots take over the votes for the next move.

Yes... but you are still betting on a team and the there would be a level of unpredictability.

Offline serejandmyself

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
I dont get what is the point. Who would play a game if they knew from satrt the outcome is predicted by bets and not by skills

This is nothing more than "team chess" where members of a team have to "vote" on the move.   So the outcome is based upon the skills of the voters.

You bet on a team (picking your team) prior to the game starting.   Then you vote on moves, but rather than using "approval voting" you can either vote the same amount on every move or you can vote your entire game-stake on a single move.   

So the outcome of the game depends upon the combined skills of a team.   

Ok i get this, but for one (unlike riverhead said) people WOULD sabbotage moves, apart from not having enough skills to play but also from the point of view to make people lose. Imagine if you would have a say in the outcome of a horse betting race (lets assume they are not fixed for now), what would be the point. Even so this is more like a football game where people are saying who to pass the ball to next, but even (which is HIGHLY unlikely) if they do have the right answer (and highly unlikely they will come to a consensus) - there will always be a problem of the highest bidder, who bids more just to get his move through or a better from the opposite side who is getting his moves trough.

Apart from this lets say this works, to me it looks like it will most likely attract not chess players but betting people (although it does sound interesting).

Wouldnt it be better for example to create an intelectual table game DAC which would be an alternative to the modern corrupt arena of such games and help get talants through plus make people money
« Last Edit: September 22, 2014, 07:42:07 pm by bitsharesrussia »
btsx - bitsharesrussia

Offline bytemaster

Sounds nice, but I think it won't take long before automated chess bots take over the votes for the next move.

Yes... but you are still betting on a team and the there would be a level of unpredictability.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Riverhead

Sounds nice, but I think it won't take long before automated chess bots take over the votes for the next move.

I remember back in the late eighties or early 90's there was a popular AI scripting game where your AI bot would battle other AI bots for survival on the mainframe.  This reminds me a bit of that...wish I could remember the name...

Offline rysgc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
    • DACZine.com
Sounds nice, but I think it won't take long before automated chess bots take over the votes for the next move.
DACZine.com - Receive all the latest DAC and BitShares community news straight to your inbox. Signup here or Submit news

Offline bytemaster

Interesting. So either closed teams or unrestricted access to the game, and in both cases each player can bet each turn on a move, but they only bet before the game on black or white.

I guess one could test this game with a friend, to see how much one would spend trying to sabotage for the opponent instead of focusing on ones own moves.

The "auction" would have to be blind, move revealed after all bets? Closed teams can at any point brute-force a move, so it becomes a game of not being "one move away from losing."

First two moves would see 0 bets. Then it would be a matter of all-in when game is 2 moves from check-mate. The only question is how much do you bet on the first, and how much on the second move.

Say black is check mate if black moves X and white moves Y. And let us say both teams know this. black would need to have more funds that white when it is white's turn if black moves X. So either they go all in, sure to avoid black to X. Or they save ALL their cash to make white move some other way. Or they have to gamble, ...

The OP is a bit confusing because halfway through writing it I realized that all bets must be placed PRIOR to the start of the game and that once all black/white shares are allocated then those shares can be used to vote on moves (only one vote per share per game).   

With this approach the I don't think you would ever be able to profitably play for the opposing team.   The teams would have to "ration their votes" because if you run out of votes early and the "attacker" can draw out the game, then they may control the critical votes toward the end of the game.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline oldman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
This is an incredible concept that could go viral if marketed well.  +5%

Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n

This is awesome!!

Can you imagine a team of grand masters playing both sides... :D

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Interesting. So either closed teams or unrestricted access to the game, and in both cases each player can bet each turn on a move, but they only bet before the game on black or white.

I guess one could test this game with a friend, to see how much one would spend trying to sabotage for the opponent instead of focusing on ones own moves.

The "auction" would have to be blind, move revealed after all bets? Closed teams can at any point brute-force a move, so it becomes a game of not being "one move away from losing."

First two moves would see 0 bets. Then it would be a matter of all-in when game is 2 moves from check-mate. The only question is how much do you bet on the first, and how much on the second move.

Say black is check mate if black moves X and white moves Y. And let us say both teams know this. black would need to have more funds that white when it is white's turn if black moves X. So either they go all in, sure to avoid black to X. Or they save ALL their cash to make white move some other way. Or they have to gamble, ...