Come play chess with us Sup Forums

Come play chess with us Sup Forums
Democratic style

Other urls found in this thread:

62.167.50.82/
lichess.org/u9erX6Gp
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>democratic chess
What's next? Capitalist Tetris?

Thanks for posting a link, I'll be sure to join

Not mother russia style

>Forgetting IP
62.167.50.82/

>white turn democracy
>black turn anarchy
Make it more realistic

>not being able to bribe important pieces so you can move first
>not being able to execute the king and queen and elect new leaders
Are they even trying?

Black team sucks dick so hard, nothing more to be expected

>This game

this is actually fun

Bug should be fixed, come

>Democratic style
This makes me curious. Has there ever been large-scale experiments based around this concept? Like a chess grandmaster playing against 1000 randoms who vote on what move to make? My intuition says the grandmaster dictator would destroy the democratic amateurs, but it would be interesting to see how much it helps to have a really varied breadth of perspectives, or how much worse it gets with no coherent strategy.

>tfw all the highest voted moves in OP are shite
no thanks, I can lose well enough solo.

Democracy works on averages, so it wouldn't be different from playing one random average guy. People making good decisions would be out-voted since they'd be in the minority.

The thing I'm curious about is emergence, whether a system consisting of multiple people can make better decisions than any one person within the system. It sounds pretty unintuitive and I might be an idiot to even consider it, but by definition you can't examine whether a system has emergent properties simply by looking at its individual parts.

A good example is the free market economy. It's pretty fucking crazy that we can have a functional economy where goods are distributed so effectively simply by letting billions of average people act in their own interests without any concern for the global outcome of their actions.

I used to go to a chess class with a grandmaster, we were like 30 people, and in the final lesson we all played against him, needless to say he trashed us so hard its not even funny, I don't think it will change that much with 1000 people

''Someone'' get a grip

Does anyone have a good book to read about how to improve at chess?

the only way to git gud is play play play play and watch some high level chess games for the tactics used

Ohh damn it. I been playing for eons and haven't been improving on my own for a while now. I usually play with a friend and he always beat me. I guess I like to play too aggressive and he is the kind that would take the slow approach to the game and always ended up beating me.

>The thing I'm curious about is emergence, whether a system consisting of multiple people can make better decisions
Possibly, but like user said, it mightn't be much different than playing just one average guy.

Suppose you have 100 average people check the moves of one average person playing against a grandmaster for threats. It'd be like running dirty water through a dirty filter - every time the move was checked, they would be doing it according to their average level minds. And looking for threats and cost management is just one aspect of chess. Those 100 people may, through practice, become exceedingly good at working together to keep pieces safe - 64 of them check squares, and 36 sit on their hands and occasionally relieve other average people of their tiresome duties. They still won't be able to win until they figure out systems for the rest of chess, if it's even possible to do so, that is.

It may well be, that after doing all of that practice, they would be 100 grandmasters in their own right, and not 100 average people. It definitely sounds to me, that they can't form systems of using their collective better, without getting better at chess as individuals, and it being a game for individuals, it's more efficient to play as an individual. Once their handicap of playing as a collective is removed, they may not be average.

I'd say the free market's different, goods are distributed effectively because of the market processes making costs go down while maintaining marketability. To have the same result with chess, those people might need to play the same game hundreds of times, and nobody's going to do that.

Like user said, just play. People watch big name games because playing with those people is usually out of the question, so watching them is the next best thing.

I find it boring, myself. I would rather be playing.

bump
it's still going on

Post link

It died a minute after I posted that because white team abandoned.

Someone, do you wanna play? You seemed really good. lichess.org/u9erX6Gp

1am here, I'm done for the night

Things like this are said, but what about TwitchPlaysPokemon making progress on a timed input with seemingly random requests.. It's a wonder the correct:incorrect ratios, but there's timing as well.

Pokemon is largely forgiving, and it's much easier for people to know what to do, to the point where the average person will be choosing the correct answer much more often than in chess.
I'm not saying this kind of thing is inherently flawed, but when you apply it to a multiplayer game the difference becomes too big.

What I would like to see is something like an RTS game where every player controls a single unit vs a single player controlling everything. That would be pretty neat.