Hacker News Reader

Maths is "turn based" albeit it has practically infinite available moves per turn. But I think the latter matters less than it may appear at first: At least in practice there isn't much different (for both humans and computers) if there are infinitely many moves, or "just" 10,000. And while (as far as I know) there aren't any board games with that many moves, the exponential explosion means that if you conceptually "combine" let's say three moves in a row, you suddenly have not 30 moves, but 27,000. And that's practically infinite.

You can play a variant of math where you only have a limited set of options available each turn, and it wouldn't make much of a difference.

(Eg limit yourself to commands you can send to vim as you write your Lean proof or whatever.)

I've never studied any openings and still have loads of fun with chess. I think you have to be IM level or something to not immediately go out theory.

It can be a bit fun, sometime, to play someone that has studied an opening at my level, but since they aren't that deep into it, they only know the moves for some variations. So me, not knowing the opening, do something from the left-field, and they don't really know how to punish it anyway. Remember one time someone got a bit grumpy, heh.

> I think in general, any game that is 'turn-based' (in this case chess), with a limited set of options, quickly boils down to pure theory and in my opinion 'dumb intelligence' of just remembering many things and patterns (the AI of now).

That's perhaps true for full information, two player games.

Try Diplomacy for a change. (Even if you play without explicit negotiations and only have the moves speak for themselves.)