Option Chess

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Option Chess

Wow Paul Bonham is a real person? Damn!

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Option Chess

Louis, would you be up for testing out your theorem? We could play 2 games by email, one where you are White and one where I am White. As much time as we need between moves. Of course, there are no Option Chess engines, so we needn't worry about cheating. Also, we could try Lee Hendon's recommendation in which White's 9th move must also be a single move, so Black is the first player to get to play an option.

My email address is given on the ChessBase article. Cheers.

This new game seems a lot of fun and exciting, so I am willing to give it a try. However, I have very little time at the moment (too much extra work after regular work), so you will have to be patient between moves. Also, I would rather try your original rules rather than the "improvement" when Black can get the first double move. I am just curious to experience by how much White is really better with the first move AND the first double move at move 9.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Option Chess

This new game seems a lot of fun and exciting, so I am willing to give it a try. However, I have very little time at the moment (too much extra work after regular work), so you will have to be patient between moves. Also, I would rather try your original rules rather than the "improvement" when Black can get the first double move. I am just curious to experience by how much White is really better with the first move AND the first double move at move 9.

Agreed, Louis. I also would like to see if White having the first move AND the first double move adds up to a huge advantage.

So Game #1, I will be White in that one, and I will start with 1. Nf3. You can send my your Black move in this game and your White move in Game #2 to my email whenever you are ready.

Tonight I sat down and found a King's Gambit opening (something along your idea of opening lines and developing pieces) that is marked 'unclear' in BCO. I played the first 8 moves, then I alternated being White and being Black and making double moves, but for Black I looked for any opportunity to just play a single move and still be ok.

So here's the result:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.d4 d5 4.exd5 Qh4 5.Ke2 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.c4 c5 8.Nc3 Nf6

All book so far, from BCO page 286 and marked as being from Mason - Kurschner, Nuremberg 1882.

Now double moves are allowed:

9.Nb5,Qb3 0-0,Ne4
10.Nc7,Qxb7 Nd7,Bxc7
11.b3,Qxc7 Rfc8
Black plays a single move to try and aim for an endgame with an extra option.
12.Bb2,Qxf4 N7f6,Qf2
13.Kd3, Be2 Re7,Rae8
or White could have played 13.Kd1,Be2 and Black still played Re7,Rae8.
Who would you rather be in this position? Black is down 2 pawns but has a strong attack and has an extra option.
Are there better moves, especially for White, from move 9 to 13 inclusive? I didn't put much thought into them, I just played moves for White that won material and / or opened lines.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Option Chess

Paul is at it again, it seems! On my relatively old and not so powerful computer, an engine finds a mate in three in less than a thenth of a second. So your numbers are probably off by two orders of magnitude, if not more. What's the point of talking about this if you come up with completely ridiculous estimates for calculation times? Current processors calculate much faster than you seem to assume.

Well, there's two points there: first, your mate-in-3 found in 0.1 seconds could be a simple K and Q versus K endgame, you don't specify how complex the original position is. Second, even if it is a complex mate, I wasn't assuming 10 seconds as the normal time for current engines to find mate in 3. I'm much more aware of current engines and current technology than you presume. The numbers I gave served to illustrate very graphically the RATIO between the calculation time needed for standard chess versus the time needed for Option Chess. Saying a tenth of a second compared to 400 seconds doesn't quite illustrate the ratio as well as 10 seconds compared to HALF A DAY.

Anyway, whatever the numbers are, it's not that we don't agree with you there. The tree of variations is wider and calculation depth will be down a little bit for the computer (it will be much more than 4 to 6 plies, though). No need to write two novels to explain that, we get it.

Maybe NOW you get it. But your exact reply to my original, much less detailed statements was "I don't follow you there". So it seemed I had to go over some basic math for you. And you obviously still don't get it: "calculation depth will be down A LITTLE BIT"??? I showed you a ratio of 4100 to 1 for just a 3 ply search, and for 4 plies the ratio goes to about 65,000 to 1.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Option Chess

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.d4 d5 4.exd5 Qh4 5.Ke2 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.c4 c5 8.Nc3 Nf6

All book so far, from BCO page 286 and marked as being from Mason - Kurschner, Nuremberg 1882.

Now double moves are allowed:

9.Nb5,Qb3 0-0,Ne4
10.Nc7,Qxb7

10. Kd3 and Nh4 winning a queen

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Option Chess

http://en.chessbase.com/post/option-...by-paul-bonham

"I decided after some consideration that the option should not become available until after Black's eigth move. Thus all standard chess openings can continue to be played to a depth of eight plies. "


After 8th Black move, 16 plies are made.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Option Chess

Well, there's two points there: first, your mate-in-3 found in 0.1 seconds could be a simple K and Q versus K endgame, you don't specify how complex the original position is. Second, even if it is a complex mate, I wasn't assuming 10 seconds as the normal time for current engines to find mate in 3. I'm much more aware of current engines and current technology than you presume. The numbers I gave served to illustrate very graphically the RATIO between the calculation time needed for standard chess versus the time needed for Option Chess. Saying a tenth of a second compared to 400 seconds doesn't quite illustrate the ratio as well as 10 seconds compared to HALF A DAY.

Well, I do have a problem with people that are completely off with their orders of magnitudes just to try to make a point. But that's just me. I find it especially baffling coming from a guy who knows about computers.

Maybe NOW you get it. But your exact reply to my original, much less detailed statements was "I don't follow you there". So it seemed I had to go over some basic math for you. And you obviously still don't get it: "calculation depth will be down A LITTLE BIT"??? I showed you a ratio of 4100 to 1 for just a 3 ply search, and for 4 plies the ratio goes to about 65,000 to 1.

It doesn't matter that we don't agree on the exact numbers. The computer will still be able to outcalculate you BIG TIME! You act like humans will be able to calculate as they do now, but it's even harder for them, as the rules are different for the options.

And good luck for your games with Louis, he's a crafty old fellow. I predict a headache, if nothing else! ;)

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Option Chess

10. Kd3 and Nh4 winning a queen

Yes, the concept of pinning does not seem to work in Option Chess.

Also, the rule "do not bring the Queen too early" is even more important when double moves are possible.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Option Chess

10. Kd3 and Nh4 winning a queen

It's fitting that I should be the one to "play" or at least find the very first blunder in Option Chess history! :D

Louis' response that pinning doesn't work in Option chess isn't quite true though. If does work at one thing: making the opponent use up a double move option to move the pinned piece immediately. One just has to be careful that the undoing of the pin doesn't mean the unpinned piece can't immediately wreak havoc and devastation!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Option Chess

It doesn't matter that we don't agree on the exact numbers. The computer will still be able to outcalculate you BIG TIME! You act like humans will be able to calculate as they do now, but it's even harder for them, as the rules are different for the options.

And good luck for your games with Louis, he's a crafty old fellow. I predict a headache, if nothing else! ;)

Yes, it will be harder for the humans to "calculate" (which they don't do in a way that even resembles the computer's algorithms). But it will be so much MORE harder for the computers to get the kind of search depth they need to defeat humans.

Keep something in mind: Garry Kasparov was able to win 1 game and draw 3 others against Deep Blue in 1997 despite the fact that Deep Blue was calculating 200 million positions PER SECOND. Do you think Kasparov was doing that as well? Of course not! Kasparov was UNDERSTANDING the position, something no computer can do. It takes that level of search and evaluation capability for the computer to overcome the human's understanding of chess. What Option Chess does is dramatically cut back the effectiveness of the computer's search by dramatically cutting back its search depth. The humans, meanwhile, will in quick time learn to understand Option Chess... and thus return to the days of beating the engines more often than not.

[Garland Best]

Re: Option Chess

Maybe I have this wrong, but here goes.

1) As far as I can tell, to a computer, a "double move" is simply 2 plies instead of one ply in the venacular. So the addition of the double move should only change the number of plys.
2) By the same token, humans have to also deal with the same increase in the number of plies in their calculations. Instead of thinking "I do this, he does this, I do this", we also have to think "I do this, then this, then he does this" or "I do this, then he does this and this."
3) Computers have not gotten better a playing chess due to raw computation. They have gotten better at (1) When to stop calculating and simply evaluating a position, and (2) How to evaluate a position. For instance with Deep Blue, I recall the head programmer describing how his program got so much better after he added a routine for evaluating the strength of rooks on half-open files.

So as far as I can tell, the main thing this changes is that the evaluation functions will have to radically revised, which well take time. The same is true for humans as well (the pin example above is just one example).

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Option Chess

Yes, it will be harder for the humans to "calculate" (which they don't do in a way that even resembles the computer's algorithms). But it will be so much MORE harder for the computers to get the kind of search depth they need to defeat humans.

Keep something in mind: Garry Kasparov was able to win 1 game and draw 3 others against Deep Blue in 1997 despite the fact that Deep Blue was calculating 200 million positions PER SECOND. Do you think Kasparov was doing that as well? Of course not! Kasparov was UNDERSTANDING the position, something no computer can do. It takes that level of search and evaluation capability for the computer to overcome the human's understanding of chess. What Option Chess does is dramatically cut back the effectiveness of the computer's search by dramatically cutting back its search depth. The humans, meanwhile, will in quick time learn to understand Option Chess... and thus return to the days of beating the engines more often than not.

You seem to assume that calculation is not a huge part of human chess at the top level. Yet, any grandmaster will tell you, they spend 99% of their time calculating variations. I'm not saying they do it like a computer does, but they are still calculating variations. They don't just stare at the position and think about strategic concepts and magically come up with the best move.

What I'm telling you is that option chess makes calculation much harder for humans than for computers, a point you seem to completely ignore.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Option Chess

You seem to assume that calculation is not a huge part of human chess at the top level. Yet, any grandmaster will tell you, they spend 99% of their time calculating variations. I'm not saying they do it like a computer does, but they are still calculating variations. They don't just stare at the position and think about strategic concepts and magically come up with the best move.

What I'm telling you is that option chess makes calculation much harder for humans than for computers, a point you seem to completely ignore.

Completely ignore? Here's my first statement from the post you just replied to:

"Yes, it will be harder for the humans to "calculate" (which they don't do in a way that even resembles the computer's algorithms)."

Busted!

YOU are the one doing the ignoring. It's obvious you are on a trolling mission just as you have done in the past, and I have no further inclination to try and educate you.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Option Chess

I love you man!

Mathieu out

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Option Chess

from another ChessBase article ...

s an expert in the game of Arimaa, I was intrigued by three recent articles about computer-resistant chess variants: “Switch Side Chain Chess” by Azlan Iqbal, “Tandem Pawn Chess” by Ken Regan, and “Option Chess” by Paul Bonham. My own observation has been that a chess variant is generally touted as computer-resistant only until it garners enough attention that someone takes the trouble to write a dominant program for it. Indeed, the track record of anti-computer claims has been so wretched that many chess players read articles such as the above with deep skepticism, if they read them at all.

It seems a bit harsh toward inventors of new chess variants to punish them for the exaggerated and mistaken claims of their predecessors. On the other hand, it seems foolish not to adjust our expectations based on experience.

He goes on.

Increase the branching factor without introducing sudden spatial changes. The game of Octi was specifically designed by Donald Green to thwart computers by having a large number of possible moves on each turn. Unfortunately, the tension in Octi is usually resolved in an explosive sequence of moves that radically alters the position and leaves one player devastated. Humans are worse than computers at sudden board revision. Despite the large branching factor of Octi, humans can only beat top computers by accumulating small advantages in the quiet buildup phase of the game, and even so it is unclear whether this would be enough if there were still serious efforts on the development side.

Omar Syed's first rule set when attempting to design Arimaa was essentially four-move chess, which massively increased the branching factor, but also brought about drastic board changes on every move. He quickly abandoned this line of investigation, concluding that four-move chess would increase computer dominance of humans, not decrease it.

Therefore, I fear that Paul Bonham's Option Chess is also a step in the wrong direction. Yes, the decision of when to use one's options would be strategic and thus favor humans, but execution of the options would make even more drastic positional changes with each move than chess already has, thus favoring computers. I suspect humans would have difficulty seeing (and we do think visually) the even more explosive tactics that computers would be capable of uncorking.

FWIW - Computer-resistant chess variants