[ExI] Posthumanist Games ... Structure of Chess (2D to 3D , 4D , 5D or 'N' Dimension)

[Tomasz Rola]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, G P SINGH wrote:

> When we have adversarial system of game like 2D Chess where only two players
> compete for checkmate. So if there is rise of players to 8 or 32 then what
> changes would be there in the structure of game so that each player play game
> independent of each other. Is there any possibility to change dimensions of
> game of chess. Can it be done to 3D, 4D , 5D or 'n'D .

Since the other poster have already given a link to fairies, I can only 
encourage you to study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variants , that 
is on the bottom of this page. Lots, lots of variants for you :-).

> I have never seen any kind of discussion on futurist game which changes the
> rule of the game. Chess is basically individualistic game where single person
> compete against another. In contrast football is a team game where aim of the
> team is to cooperatively perform so that opponent team's cooperative
> performance will be lesser.

I am rather too new in the field of game theory to even call myself 
a newbie, but I guess every game has some sets of rules R and goals G 
(and, I would say, an "expectation" - like "I will not be bored" or "I 
will learn"). The rest is just a matter of convention - due to misc 
limitations, games of the past were fixed (R and G sets well defined, 
not changing during a game). This was good, because it is easier to 
transfer a game concept to another person if it has well defined, easy to 
grasp rules. Nowadays, it is already possible to define some other, 
non-fixed (or maybe they should be called "flexible") games.

I expect +humans (I don't really like this "posthumans" word - as I 
understand it, it implies my possible (ex)termination) to challenge 
themselves with some kind of generalised chess. Along the line marked by 
Gess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gess . Extending Gess to n-dimensional 
cube with 3^n pieces already gives 2^(3^n) - 1 possible pieces (some may 
be created during game, at one's will, as described by rules), which makes 
it quite complicated and flexible.

Generalising further, this can be described as {X}^N-chess, where X are 
either names or lists of possible (allowed) values of some game 
parameters. Those can be, in case of board description, either its sizes 
(as a n-dimensional cuboid) or (even better, perhaps) in the form of a 
graph. So, each time one "unfixes" a game parameter, one creates a wholly 
new dimension in the "chess variants space".

A number of players and their sets of figures are another possible 
parameters. A list of goals, too.

I suspect there are some very interesting variants of "solo chess", one of 
which is the queen placement problem.

Other funny thing to look at would be defining chess with variable board 
(either by strict rules or by players actions).

Anyway, any aspiring +human is invited to explore the chess-space in their 
free time. :-)

For description of different variants, one should probably choose 
predicate-based language, to give it some consistency and to make easy 
comparison of different games possible. It could be real fun, if a 
computer could play such game after being given its description (sure, 
sure, I know this is still somewhat difficult in 2009, we have to be 
patient).

Frankly, I don't know if what I have written is creative in any way or if 
I am just reinventing the wheel. I have decided to jump inside the problem 
as I was reading email starting the subject. But after short time spent on 
thinking about it, it seems to be very nice looking and interesting area 
(highly probable that someone else has already explored and described it 
better :-), but still, this doesn't make it less attractive).

> Here i am not making  chess as a form of football or social game. Main problem
> here is that How cognitive intensive games can be played by many players. Can
> it be done by changing their structure like my idea of changing the dimension
> and change game rules accordingly.

With n>2 players, a reasonable thing for them to do would be forming 
coalitions, until only two stay still standing for a final butchery. 
Coalitions are possible, even if rules disallow them and players do not 
know each other and cannot communicate. They just don't have to be 
explicit. During first half, players will probably be dancing around each 
other, trying to preserve their status quo and weakening anybody else. As 
soon as there is a weakling nearby, he will be either "divided" between 
his neighbors or finished by the strongest one.

Or maybe they will do something totally different. There is a number of 
theoretical possibilities. If you really want to research this, maybe 
analysis of group formation in a kindergarten can help. Of course, +humans 
should be able to analyse and judge other players considering more factors 
than we do (in a kindergarten or somewhere). This analysis of anonymous 
others, judging by their gameplay, is a challenge by itself and adds 
complication to the game. I mean, no looking at or making a "poker face" - 
just their actions on the board.

BTW, hello to all. I have been reading this list for a natural number of 
years but not until today decided to get out of hiding :-). I would 
describe my interests as rather broad, changing over time but somewhat 
oscilating around various humanity/anthropology related subjects and 
technology.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **