[HN Gopher] Pauli Chess
___________________________________________________________________
Pauli Chess
Author : weinzierl
Score : 50 points
Date : 2020-03-28 07:57 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.plover.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.plover.com)
| aj7 wrote:
| Just switch the knights with the bishops, and you're in a
| different universe.
| [deleted]
| symplee wrote:
| Anyone have links to play online?
|
| Some sites I can think of that support other variants:
|
| https://lichess.org/ ( https://github.com/ornicar/lila/ )
|
| And some crazier variants:
|
| https://www.pychess.org/ ( https://github.com/gbtami/pychess-
| variants )
|
| https://chessvariants.training/
| dwighttk wrote:
| https://pippinbarr.github.io/chesses/
|
| (doesn't have Pauli Chess, but does have some fun variants)
| sova wrote:
| I bet a superhero from lichess would be happy to bust this out
| in a weekend
| dmurray wrote:
| Lichess's policy is generally not to implement tons of
| variants, even those that would play nicely with PGN (this
| wouldn't).
|
| You could definitely hack this together on a fork of lichess,
| but don't expect to see it on the main site.
| mannykannot wrote:
| "The main idea is: two pieces can be on the same square...
| Pierre-Francoys says he wishes that more than two pieces could
| share a square... The name "Pauli Chess", is inspired by the
| Pauli exclusion principle, which says that no more than two
| electrons can occupy the same atomic orbital."
|
| Pierre-Francoys' variant would be Bose chess, I suppose?
| downshun wrote:
| Alphazero mastered chess by already-implemented self-play.
|
| A slight change in the game rules can have a significant effect
| on the game and strategy, as anyone that delves into chess
| variants knows. Is the same true for their implementations?
|
| What is the limitation for state of the art AI in adapting in
| such a way to rule changes?
| dabei wrote:
| It's a very simple change, since the fundamentals of the game
| is still the same. It should take no more than a day to change
| the code and re-train the model.
| shmageggy wrote:
| Turns out DeepMind has already been working on exploring
| variants with Vladimir Kramnik!
|
| https://www.chess.com/article/view/no-castling-chess-kramnik...
|
| Currently they have to train from scratch, but adapting to new
| tasks is an active area of research for RL broadly.
| karmakaze wrote:
| > 5. Pieces of opposite colors sharing a square do not threaten
| one another.
|
| This is going to be strange with kings. You could capture a piece
| in a square with a king and the king would require two moves to
| capture it, and if it was a queen the king couldn't move. Then
| just have to check the square for mate.
| codeflo wrote:
| There are not all that many ways this could happen, though. I
| think you can only enter the square of the opposing king with a
| pawn. With all other pieces, you'd have to threaten the square
| first, which would be check. You could promote a pawn into the
| king and create a queen on its square.
|
| The other way would be if the king itself moves. If the king
| moves onto a square with an opposing rook and a queen, and
| decides to capture the rook, the king is trapped until the
| queen moves. In this scenario, the queen must have moved there
| in the last turn, putting the king in check. Maybe that's a new
| way to get a stalemate.
| jackhalford wrote:
| I don't think that could happen, if an opposing king shares a
| square with another piece, you would choose to take the king to
| win the game.
| lihaciudaniel wrote:
| Either two pieces can be on same square this would definitely
| mess with tactics. But strategically speaking is just like normal
| chess but with more squares
| crystaln wrote:
| Not at all. As the page says, you can't block pawns, which
| entirely changes the game. You also don't need to move pawns to
| develop pieces.
| esrauch wrote:
| You can still block pawns using a pawn plus another piece.
| gpm wrote:
| Can you? The rules are unclear. Interpreted literally they
| would mean that the pawn could move into the square
| (directly in front of it) and then take one of the
| opponents pieces in that square.
| dwighttk wrote:
| >All pieces move and capture the same as in standard
| chess
|
| so pawns have to capture diagonally still... I guess if
| you want to see 4 as an exception to that then they can
| capture straight ahead, but I'm assuming it isn't.
| sova wrote:
| Super leaky chess? Looking forward to an implementation so I
| can try and wrap my mind around how it works. What's to
| prevent both players from pushing all pawns through the leaky
| sieve and promoting everything to Queens right off?
| downshun wrote:
| Captures
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Other chess variants beyond the common: 1) friendly fire is on.
| You can capture your own pieces if you want.
|
| 2) You can move yourself into check, but only if you checkmate
| your opponent simultaneously, in which case the game is a tie
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| One of my favorite variants is suicide chess. The goal is to be
| the first to lose all your pieces. All rules are the same with
| one addition: if you can take a piece, you must.
| kick wrote:
| It's really fun! You can play it on Lichess under
| "Antichess."
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-03-28 23:00 UTC)