undefined

points

[-]

Chess has different pieces, which has higher entropy than a true 1d backgammon or 1d checkers with only one piece a field.

You could play with pieces that have a value of 1..N instead. Starting with 2,3, and 5 value pieces, and splitting them as needed. Making it one-dimensional again, while keeping 100% of the rules.

Final verdict, therefore: backgammon is 1D, not 1.5.

We could pretend that the second dimension was not playing a role in tactics back then, since it was very recently invented, like the brothers Wright invented the third dimension a hundred years ago. Or some hot air balloon at a world faire did it.

by traderj0e1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

The "dimensions" in these board games isn't a mathematical/topology thing, is it? Normally one dimension = one real number space. Every board game ever would fit in 1D then, "2D" chess included.

I'm fine calling Backgammon 1.5-D. Physically you focus on a single dimension, and the second one matters too but it's not the same.

by highphive23 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That's a good point, you could surely model full chess in a single dimension, it would just be that each pieces' movement rules would be more confusing

E.g. a pawn can move exactly 8 squares towards its opponents end (16 on its first move if no piece occupies 8 squares away), but can only capture 7 or 9 squares forward (with some extra modulo math to prevent wrapping)

by traderj0e22 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yeah and it'd be even worse if you want to flatten out the piece colors and types into the 1D array.