Hacker News Reader

Comment by SilverRed | Hacker News Reader

First and second implies a hierarchy and uneven power balance. Both players should have their turns simultaneously.

I thought of this and realized it'd actually be a fun game. Both players write down their next move and then move simultaneously once both are ready. To avoid race conditions, if a player moves a piece that is to be taken by the opponent's move, then that player has saved that piece with that move. That creates an interesting dynamic where you may not wish to take the most valuable piece if you predict the other player will move out of the way.

Diplomacy works like this.

How would two pieces moving to the same square be resolved? Both lost, or ... ? Regardless of the specifics, it would create a very complicated (but potentially interesting) dynamic when moving any valuable piece within a contested region.

Maybe highest value price wins, with ties losing both pieces.

You gamble with how many points you have left. Let's say each player starts with 40 points (most games take about 40 moves). You spend anywhere from 0 to however many points you have left to move a piece. If it's early on and there's no chance of conflict, bet 0. If it's an important piece in a crowd, spend more. If there's a conflict, whoever spent more wins that spot.

It might add an element of subterfuge to the game.

> How would two pieces moving to the same square be resolved?

I'd say that the one that has traveled the longest distance wins, and captures the piece that started closer.

(My implicit mental model is that both pieces "depart" from their home squares at the same time and travel at a constant rate, so the closer piece arrives at an empty square, while the more distant piece arrives second and captures the first-arriving piece. This may also encourage more dynamic play)

I used to play a real-time version of this called Kung-Fu Chess. Each piece takes time to move to its destination, and when it arrives, a timer ticks down before that specific piece can be moved again. Very fun game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung-Fu_Chess https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVob7meb83w

"To avoid race conditions", indeed!

> "To avoid race conditions", indeed!

Ha! True enough, "a good pun is its reword" ;).

My son and I would play chess this way, with my wife actually moving the piece. We use a dice or piece ranking to determine ending turns on the same square depending on the actual game we’re playing.

They are uneven, having the first move is a documented advantage called "initiative". Your first move as black depends on the first move that white made, typically you won't have the same response for 1. d4 and 1. e4!

Anyway, I've been looking forward to this day, where SJW start trying to change chess because it's "racist" because white have advantage of initiative and "sexist" because it makes you sacrify the queen to save the king. Looking forward to see that level of stupidity being reached!!

That’s weird, there’s a documented advantage to being the second player to move as well known as the “defender’s advantage” since you have more information to make your move. Your information includes both the board state and the knowledge of the other player’s move while the first player only has knowledge of the board state. No idea where the idea of an advantage to being first came from

Statistically in chess however there seems to be an advantage for the first mover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

You can be #1 and I'll be #A.

That sounds like segregation. Putting different players in to different sets.

Yeah, or the Mongooses, that's a good team name. "The Fighting Mongooses."

Be wise, randomize!

Why not try to be more inclusive and have each piece with its own color?

"Actually this rook identifies as bishop"

You didn't capture my king it now identifies as a queen, please stop dead-naming my queen. Funny enough chess already have has a rule that allows for pawns to become queens, touche

Reply on news.ycombinator.com