BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => DAC PLAY => Topic started by: bytemaster on September 22, 2014, 01:14:37 pm
-
The Chess DAC is a large multi-player chess game where all players can play *both sides* of one large DAC-wide game.
Players bet on the winner (black or white) when they make a move. Each "turn" is an auction where people pay to move a piece. Which ever move has the largest balance is the move that is made. All funds contributed go into a winnings pot and give the submitter either "white shares" or "black shares".
When the game is "won" the pot is divided among the shares of the winning color.
This game as an interesting twist: you can bid on both sides and thus attempt to cause the other side to "make a mistake".
From a gambling perspective the outcome of the game is unpredictable and from a players perspective it poses new challenges. People can create "chess bots" and join a "team".
If someone is gutsy enough they can pay enough to win every auction and "control the game"... there can be many attempts to "game" the "game" and that all turns into user engagement. The game will have a relatively high "rake" which will make it unprofitable to control both sides with high bids and thus forcing people to "pick a side" if they want to win.
The color with less bids (fewer white shares or black shares) has a higher payout-per-share and thus the risk/reward of joining a losing side balances out and keeps the game evenly matched.
I suspect you will have to "pre-purchase" white-shares or black-shares prior to the start of the game and then use those shares to bid on moves in-game. This will prevent new bets from diluting old bets once the odds change.
-
wow
-
+5%
-
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
-
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.
-
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
I think there is skill. It's basically chess by committee. People in the know will vote for the best move reaching a consensus. Those not skilled or who are trying to sabotage the other side would have to go against the consensus at incredible cost.
-
I never thought of creating a DAC like this. It seems my PTS/BTSX shares are just realizing more and more potential.
What other games to people typically bet on? Dominos? Backgammon?
-
Can I pick a side half way through a game to support?
Then can I choose later to vote on the opposite side's move either because I have decided that side is more likely to win so Im switching my support, or Im trying to sabotage that side?
This sounds like it could be a lot of fun to play, as well as quite profitable as a DAC.
-
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, ...
-
This is awesome!!
Can you imagine a team of grand masters playing both sides... :D
-
This is an incredible concept that could go viral if marketed well. +5%
-
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.
-
Sounds nice, but I think it won't take long before automated chess bots take over the votes for the next move.
-
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...
-
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 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
-
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.
-
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
-
Open source bots, battle hardened in the betting pits of DAC Chess, take on Big Blue!
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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?
-
@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 ;)
If it becomes possible to win big money with it, strong chess players and algorithm experts will quickly jump on it. I'm pretty sure playing best moves will be a better strategy than sabotaging one side (since I can convince the side I'm playing for to follow my vote if I can show them my moves are good).
-
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?
You should have started from this ;)
You mean best DAC as in......
-
@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 ;)
If it becomes possible to win big money with it, strong chess players and algorithm experts will quickly jump on it. I'm pretty sure playing best moves will be a better strategy than sabotaging one side (since I can convince the side I'm playing for to follow my vote if I can show them my moves are good).
Its not easy to find a gold investor who also plays chess and is a gambler and is an algorithm freak (in a good way) :) but hey, then again, i make one (more or less)
-
p.s. @ BM - what about making a DAC like i said for intelectual table games, is there a need in such a thing?
I could see a DAC where you are matched against a player like other chess games and then charged the standard transaction fee per move. The sell would be that 1) other than the tx-fee it'd be free and 2) it wouldn't need distracting ads in the client to finance it.
However rather than a separate DAC it could be a game mode of DAC Chess. Like BitSharesX has markets DAC Chess could have game markets: 1:1, 1:bot, bot:bot, Crowd:Crowd.
Even a market where players can select 1 v Current Bot Champion :)
-
@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 ;)
If it becomes possible to win big money with it, strong chess players and algorithm experts will quickly jump on it. I'm pretty sure playing best moves will be a better strategy than sabotaging one side (since I can convince the side I'm playing for to follow my vote if I can show them my moves are good).
Its not easy to find a gold investor who also plays chess and is a gambler and is an algorithm freak (in a good way) :) but hey, then again, i make one (more or less)
E.g., P. Wolff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Wolff
-
p.s. @ BM - what about making a DAC like i said for intelectual table games, is there a need in such a thing?
Even a market where players can select 1 v Current Bot Champion :)
Ok that might be an idea if we are in the gambling world
@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 ;)
If it becomes possible to win big money with it, strong chess players and algorithm experts will quickly jump on it. I'm pretty sure playing best moves will be a better strategy than sabotaging one side (since I can convince the side I'm playing for to follow my vote if I can show them my moves are good).
Its not easy to find a gold investor who also plays chess and is a gambler and is an algorithm freak (in a good way) :) but hey, then again, i make one (more or less)
E.g., P. Wolff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Wolff
i must play this guy when we launch the DAC! Seriously though, maybe we should write him a letter to get his attention. Obviously not at this stage, but i think it might be worth something
-
Even a market where players can select 1 v Current Bot Champion :)
Ok that might be an idea if we are in the gambling world
Actually I was thinking more a private match to test your mettle. Since the game would run locally it wouldn't take more than a single transaction fee to kick it off. However if this market is as busygin suggests it might be people may hold their bot code close to the vest.
Question: I can see bot code being extremely guarded. Would it be possible to submit your bot without revealing the source code?
-
The target audience is gamblers who want something a bit more engaging than variations on dice.
It is far too complicated for gamblers IMO. If betting on chess had any real demand, then we should be able to find a moderately successful website doing as much. (And maybe you can, I have not looked)
This game will be crazy and may degenerate into something that isn't even fun to play. I would definitely suggest that someone sit down with 4 people and play it using paper or a spreadsheet. In fact, I might suggest someone hosts a game using available stuff on the net + google docs spreadsheet for bets.
One interesting thought is that none of the chess AI programs would work to cheat with, because of the opponents being able to move your pieces.
This basically takes regular chess and makes it far more complicated with all the cost analysis tied into having to defend your own pieces against being moved by your opponent. I am not sure that is a positive step for most people. Chess is already so skillful with no luck element, so it is sort of a dry thing to bet on. Th basically makes it far more skillful than it already is. Perhaps the DAC would need several variations to choose to play.
My 2 cents.
-
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
Maybe allow players to choose what BitAsset they want to be paid in. DAC could trade whatever internal currency for desired BitAsset on open market at time of payout and give players what they want.
-
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
Maybe allow players to choose what BitAsset they want to be paid in. DAC could trade whatever internal currency for desired BitAsset on open market at time of payout and give players what they want.
Diasagree - 2 points
1) It encourages the use of bitGLD and bitSLV - retrespectivly making a larger market cap and getting more users onto those assets
2) I really like "making" gamblers using gold and silver, this is a superb idea. As in it will teach them the value of money (its frequent that gamblers have a problem with value), and those are the best store of value known. Also it will discourage them from wasting it like they are used to.
Might be not a bad idea to make inputs in bitUSD only - and outputs in bitGLD / bitSLV - automaticly converted by a bot (also will add liquididty)
-
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
Maybe allow players to choose what BitAsset they want to be paid in. DAC could trade whatever internal currency for desired BitAsset on open market at time of payout and give players what they want.
Diasagree - 2 points
1) It encourages the use of bitGLD and bitSLV - retrespectivly making a larger market cap and getting more users onto those assets
2) I really like "making" gamblers using gold and silver, this is a superb idea. As in it will teach them the value of money (its frequent that gamblers have a problem with value), and those are the best store of value known. Also it will discourage them from wasting it like they are used to.
Might be not a bad idea to make inputs in bitUSD only - and outputs in bitGLD / bitSLV - automaticly converted by a bot (also will add liquididty)
I would prefer to have a choice rather than being "made" to use an arbitrary BitAsset because someone else prefers it and wants to make it more attractive.
-
Create 2 rival chess DACS, that play against each other, to model / test how decentralised entities evolve and learn to attack / defend - i.e. not just on the chessboard.
-
This has been suggested in the past:
I would like to see some chess tournaments and people betting each other or even bet to another player if they wish.. :)
If I remember correctly the idea was abandoned, because people advised that you can't really have real chess tournaments because people will create bots. So in reality the bet will be who has created the better bot, or if it is a human vs. a bot if the human can beat the bot..
So although I would love to play in chess tournaments with real money, I would be very hesitant to bet real money if bots were to play the game..
-
This has been suggested in the past:
I would like to see some chess tournaments and people betting each other or even bet to another player if they wish.. :)
If I remember correctly the idea was abandoned, because people advised that you can't really have real chess tournaments because people will create bots. So in reality the bet will be who has created the better bot, or if it is a human vs. a bot if the human can beat the bot..
So although I would love to play in chess tournaments with real money, I would be very hesitant to bet real money if bots were to play the game..
couldnt you prevent bots playing (where you want a human player) - by entering captchas or something like that?
-
This has been suggested in the past:
I would like to see some chess tournaments and people betting each other or even bet to another player if they wish.. :)
If I remember correctly the idea was abandoned, because people advised that you can't really have real chess tournaments because people will create bots. So in reality the bet will be who has created the better bot, or if it is a human vs. a bot if the human can beat the bot..
So although I would love to play in chess tournaments with real money, I would be very hesitant to bet real money if bots were to play the game..
couldnt you prevent bots playing (where you want a human player) - by entering captchas or something like that?
The way you cheat is you have another chess program open, like ChessMaster, and you play what your opponent plays and then input as your move what ChestMaster counters with.
-
The way you cheat is you have another chess program open, like ChessMaster, and you play what your opponent plays and then input as your move what ChestMaster counters with.
1 - this would be boring. 2 - would 2 seperate machines play alike?
-
Cool idea! :)
-
1 - this would be boring. 2 - would 2 separate machines play alike?
Yes, I agree this would be VERY boring. However, if you had money on the game...
It doesn't really matter if two separate machines played alike. You're just basically being a human API. The Cheater wouldn't need to think, just mimic.
1. DAC-Player-1: Q-R4
2. Cheater in ChessMaster in another window or on another computer Q-R4
3. ChessMaster K-R4 Capture Queen
4. Cheater in DAC - K-R4 Capture Queen
-
I can see bot code being extremely guarded.
Not necessarily. Stockfish is considered the best chess engine now and it's open source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfish_(chess)
But it would be interesting to see if more people are attracted to work on chess algorithms whether open-source or closed-source model will win.
-
This game will be crazy and may degenerate into something that isn't even fun to play. I would definitely suggest that someone sit down with 4 people and play it using paper or a spreadsheet. In fact, I might suggest someone hosts a game using available stuff on the net + google docs spreadsheet for bets.
Consultation games and games where the move is chosen by votes have been played for a long time and never produced anything "degenerate". For instance, there were games between cities, and games where a city played against a top grandmaster:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1007622
One interesting thought is that none of the chess AI programs would work to cheat with, because of the opponents being able to move your pieces.
Nope. Moving pieces doesn't help much. Visualization is a problem only up to a certain level, masters and grandmasters can play entire games blindfolded, even multiple games at once.
-
This game will be crazy and may degenerate into something that isn't even fun to play. I would definitely suggest that someone sit down with 4 people and play it using paper or a spreadsheet. In fact, I might suggest someone hosts a game using available stuff on the net + google docs spreadsheet for bets.
Consultation games and games where the move is chosen by votes have been played for a long time and never produced anything "degenerate". For instance, there were games between cities, and games where a city played against a top grandmaster:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1007622
One interesting thought is that none of the chess AI programs would work to cheat with, because of the opponents being able to move your pieces.
Nope. Moving pieces doesn't help much. Visualization is a problem only up to a certain level, masters and grandmasters can play entire games blindfolded, even multiple games at once.
The initial post referenced an idea where you could vote on your opponents moves. If you remove this capability (requiring some trust system in team integrity) then you have a regular chess game and none of that stuff applies.
BTW I thought the more advanced chess sites basically had copies of the chess programs running and were able to detect cheats ? Does anyone know ?
I'd still ask that you guys go find a site that is moderately successful with betting on chess. People don't like to bet on dry games without randomness. That is why backgammon with the dice rolling has been a huge betting game for millenia (AFAIK) but outside of Central Park I personally have never heard of betting on chess.
-
The initial post referenced an idea where you could vote on your opponents moves. If you remove this capability (requiring some trust system in team integrity) then you have a regular chess game and none of that stuff applies.
As I said before, I believe that sabotaging the opposite side shouldn't be a good strategy. The reason is that strong players playing for the team can convince others to support their suggested moves. But we will see.
BTW I thought the more advanced chess sites basically had copies of the chess programs running and were able to detect cheats ? Does anyone know ?
Yes, but it uses a complicated statistical analysis that I'd rather not trust to the blockchain. What we will have if we allow humans and computers to team up is called "Advanced Chess"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
I find it exciting enough to not worry about computer assistance.
I'd still ask that you guys go find a site that is moderately successful with betting on chess.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/chess/market?id=1.114976736
-
The initial post referenced an idea where you could vote on your opponents moves. If you remove this capability (requiring some trust system in team integrity) then you have a regular chess game and none of that stuff applies.
As I said before, I believe that sabotaging the opposite side shouldn't be a good strategy. The reason is that strong players playing for the team can convince others to support their suggested moves. But we will see.
I don't follow this. There is this whole bidding element. Just letting people bid against each other will likely degenerate into something that is not playable, especially when being able to bid on opp's moves. I suspect you would end up in spots where it is obvious the only way to win is to outbid. So then it becomes a game of chicken ? I wish I knew more about other games that have bidding systems.
BTW I thought the more advanced chess sites basically had copies of the chess programs running and were able to detect cheats ? Does anyone know ?
Yes, but it uses a complicated statistical analysis that I'd rather not trust to the blockchain. What we will have if we allow humans and computers to team up is called "Advanced Chess"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
I find it exciting enough to not worry about computer assistance.
Agreed
I'd still ask that you guys go find a site that is moderately successful with betting on chess.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/chess/market?id=1.114976736
I realize my wording was poor now in the sentence above, but your example is a standard booking site that puts up a line on chess. I meant a site that you can bet on yourself playing. Like backgammon/poker and perhaps other games. If they don't exist in centralized fashion ...
I really don't want to be so negative, but I can't help it... errr
-
How to beat a few grandmasters at chess, at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcKYg1mM35U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcKYg1mM35U)
-
That guy is brilliant. I remember watching him a lot and was always astonished by him. Anyone knows why he disappeared though? I haven't seen him for many years..
-
妥妥的好啊!
+5%
-
I'd still ask that you guys go find a site that is moderately successful with betting on chess. People don't like to bet on dry games without randomness. That is why backgammon with the dice rolling has been a huge betting game for millenia (AFAIK) but outside of Central Park I personally have never heard of betting on chess.
http://millionairechess.com/
-
How do you stop a person making large bets and good moves for side A, and then in the late game, make a single big bet and very bad move for side B, and cause side B to lose the game?
-
How do you stop a person making large bets and good moves for side A, and then in the late game, make a single big bet and very bad move for side B, and cause side B to lose the game?
Remove the betting per move... you bet at the start of the game and then consume votes every move.
-
How do you stop a person making large bets and good moves for side A, and then in the late game, make a single big bet and very bad move for side B, and cause side B to lose the game?
Remove the betting per move... you bet at the start of the game and then consume votes every move.
This approach would also be fun for heads-up limit poker.