0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: kokojie on September 25, 2014, 03:19:50 pmHow 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?
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.
Quote from: gamey on September 23, 2014, 06:28:56 pmThe 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. QuoteBTW 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_ChessI find it exciting enough to not worry about computer assistance.Agreed QuoteI'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=1.114976736I 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 ...
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.
Quote from: gamey on September 22, 2014, 08:50:38 pmThis 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=1007622QuoteOne 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.
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.
I can see bot code being extremely guarded.
1 - this would be boring. 2 - would 2 separate machines play alike?
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.
Quote from: mf-tzo on September 23, 2014, 12:09:59 pmThis has been suggested in the past:QuoteI 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:QuoteI 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..
I would like to see some chess tournaments and people betting each other or even bet to another player if they wish..
Quote from: bitcoinerS on September 23, 2014, 08:49:32 amQuote from: bytemaster on September 22, 2014, 08:18:55 pmI 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 currencyMaybe 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 points1) It encourages the use of bitGLD and bitSLV - retrespectivly making a larger market cap and getting more users onto those assets2) 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)
Quote from: bytemaster on September 22, 2014, 08:18:55 pmI 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 currencyMaybe 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
The target audience is gamblers who want something a bit more engaging than variations on dice.
Quote from: Riverhead on September 22, 2014, 08:25:09 pmEven a market where players can select 1 v Current Bot Champion Ok that might be an idea if we are in the gambling world
Even a market where players can select 1 v Current Bot Champion
Quote from: bitsharesrussia on September 22, 2014, 08:15:24 pmp.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
p.s. @ BM - what about making a DAC like i said for intelectual table games, is there a need in such a thing?
Quote from: bitsharesrussia on September 22, 2014, 08:24:46 pmQuote from: busygin on September 22, 2014, 08:20:41 pmQuote from: bitsharesrussia on September 22, 2014, 08:15:24 pm@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. Wolffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Wolff
Quote from: busygin on September 22, 2014, 08:20:41 pmQuote from: bitsharesrussia on September 22, 2014, 08:15:24 pm@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)
Quote from: bitsharesrussia on September 22, 2014, 08:15:24 pm@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).
@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
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 currency2) 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?
I really dont undersatnd how can you as a chess player say this is more exiting....
Quote from: busygin on September 22, 2014, 07:48:33 pmAs 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?Quote from: bytemaster on September 22, 2014, 06:08:12 pmQuote from: GodsCreation on September 22, 2014, 05:58:26 pmSounds 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
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?Quote from: bytemaster on September 22, 2014, 06:08:12 pmQuote from: GodsCreation on September 22, 2014, 05:58:26 pmSounds 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.
Quote from: GodsCreation on September 22, 2014, 05:58:26 pmSounds 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.
Sounds nice, but I think it won't take long before automated chess bots take over the votes for the next move.
Quote from: bitsharesrussia on September 22, 2014, 01:53:14 pmI 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 skillsThis 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
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, ...