upvote

points

by hackyhacky1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby anyfoo1 days ago|
next
[-]
Which reminds me that I just lost the game.

I also lost the game not too long ago, but before that, I think I didn't actually lose it for a decade of more? And losing it wasn't even because it was mentioned anywhere, I genuinely just thought of it by myself, after forgetting about it for so long.

So my sincerest apologies if my comment just made any readers lose their long streak in the game.

reply
upvoteby mckirk1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Damnit, I am pretty sure I had a few-year-streak going until just now. Welp, off to the grind again, I suppose.
reply
upvoteby lamasery1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I've lost it a lot lately, for some reason, after what I suppose was my third multi-year victory streak.

Like, five or so losses this year.

reply
upvoteby djsavvy1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Same here, oddly enough, and every time besides this one was without anyone else mentioning it.
reply
upvoteby anyfoo23 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think once you lost the game once, it's much easier to lose it again relatively shortly after. It takes some long term distraction (and nobody mentioning it) to forget about it again.
reply
upvoteby edanm23 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yep, just lost after I think >5 years. But not because of your comment, because of GP comment.
reply
upvoteby olelele2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Wow maybe 10+years running here since i lost last..
reply
upvoteby jaeh1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
damn. multiyear streak ruined. i even managed to forget i was playing.

i just lost the game.

reply
upvoteby shmeeed23 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Nah, I won't be fooled again. I won a long time ago and never looked back.

https://xkcd.com/391

reply
upvoteby CGMthrowaway1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Sounds like a dating game. "Delay texting her back or expressing your feelings as long as possible, until just the moment before she will give up on you"
reply
upvoteby benleejamin1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
And if you like Mind Chess, you might enjoy Mornington Crescent, which has a similar flavor to it! [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lziCsPmlbZI

reply
upvoteby Mordisquitos10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Absolutely! Visualising a long string of opponents saying 'Check' to each other until one calls the checkmate reminded me of when you and your opponent both take the classic dub-Victoria understrategy and repeatedly 'Parsons Green' each other. Such memories!
reply
upvoteby traderj0e1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Speaking of games without pieces, it's hard to develop one for only 2 players, but I've tried: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43110448 (yes that is my alt account, sorry but I forgot my password)
reply
upvoteby oever9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Working at the Mind Chess Café is an interesting job.
reply
upvoteby rbits20 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Reminds me of The Button[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Button_(Reddit)

reply
upvoteby wat1000019 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
This sounds like an inferior, diminished version of Mornington Crescent.
reply
upvoteby adam_patarino9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I did not enjoy this
reply
upvoteby 1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby stavros1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
Wait, how is the "put off checkmate" objective scored? Turns before checkmate? Or what?

Is it just a joke?

reply
upvoteby hackyhacky1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The sibling comment proposed a possible scoring mechanism which might result in enjoyable gameplay, but I think the bigger point (for me, at least) is the Mind Chess represents a reducto ad absurdum of the strategy game genre. It eschews as many rules as possible, leaving you only with the goal of knowing your opponent's mind. So Mind Chess is more of a thought exercise.
reply
upvoteby bombcar1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's similar to the 2-minute version of Diplomacy - get everyone together and the second sneakiest bastard wins; because nobody will let the sneakiest bastard win.
reply
upvoteby contraposit1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The Search for the Longest Infinite Chess Game

https://youtu.be/b-Bb_TyhC1A

reply
upvoteby tylervigen1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I have never played it, but I could imagine a scoring mechanism that would make it interesting, and perhaps is implied by the rules:

The score value starts at 1. Every additional "check" multiplies the score value by 2 (so 2, 4, 8, 16...). The first player to say "checkmate" receives the score. Track your summed score between games; the player with the highest overall score at any given time is "winning."

reply
upvoteby zeroonetwothree23 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Isn't the optimal strategy just to say "checkmate" immediately? That dominates anything else.
reply
upvoteby bee_rider22 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think to have any chance of making this work, you’d need to have a community of players in a tournament. Everybody gets to issue some number of challenges, and the winner is the person who accumulates the most points over the course of the tournament. I think you should only get points based on the length of games you win.

Then the game at least has a chance to develop some mechanics. Players who delayed longer have a chance at winning more points. They also might be challenged more…

reply
upvoteby tux313 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Not in an iterated game. If my team agrees we'll never checkmate before turn 5, the game is the same except we start the actual game on turn 5 with a big score advantage compared to everyone else.

You can leave at any time by breaking the rule, but then you will be playing with other people who say checkmate immediately, and that would be much worse.

Being prosocial is in fact a stable equilibrium. As prophecized by gestures broadly at everything.

reply
upvoteby hackyhacky23 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That would be the equivalent of spawn camping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camping_(video_games)

reply
upvoteby zadikian1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It only works if there are more than two players
reply
upvoteby jamie_ca22 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Give two players cards, "Check" and "Checkmate".

Both players choose a card. Players then in turns reveal their card, and if Check, make another choice. The player first revealing Checkmate wins if their opponent's currently-chosen card is also a Checkmate.

reply
upvoteby stavros22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
But then this just gives the win to the first person to open their card, since in that round they had both selected Checkmate. Or, you have an incentive to rush to open your card when you know you've selected Checkmate, as you want to be the first one to open.
reply
upvoteby manwe15019 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In the proposed game above, there is no rounds, just alternating plays, in which you have to select you play before the other player announces their play, then swap and repeat
reply
upvoteby stavros19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So both players select their cards, then player 1 announces, then player 2, then select, then player 2 announces, then player 1? This seems a bit limiting, as you can't really select Checkmate on the play where you don't reveal first, because you only stand to lose.
reply
upvoteby smrq15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I believe the intended turn order is:

1: P1 selects 2: P2 selects 3: P1 reveals 4: P1 selects 5: P2 reveals 6: GOTO 2

I.e. each player always selects immediately before their opponent reveals.

reply
upvoteby BoiledCabbage13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah, but what stops P1 from DDos'ing and picking checkmate each time?

If P2 picks check the first time, then they're done. At any point after if they pick checkmate, since P1 has checkmate selected they will reveal it and P2 will lose.

It seems like a poorly thought through game...

reply
upvoteby manwe1509 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Because P1 lost on their first turn if P2 wasn’t about to pick checkmate
reply
upvoteby stavros11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
But then you won't know if the other player has selected checkmate when you reveal yours.
reply