Strange games
“Well, if you watch this kind of stuff, then you know more about them than me,” I said. - I somehow got such a brisk wording: they say, the rhetors were able to change the past and did it with pleasure; incanters could change the future, but resorted to their skills extremely reluctantly. ...
- They had to change the future in response to the actions of the rhetoricians.
Neil Stephenson "Anathema"
Strange books lead me to make strange games. "Anathema" Neil Stevenson is no exception. My article is one big spoiler for this piece. If you are going to read it, first read the book! I warned you ...
This book is about monks. About monks, for the most part, do not believe in God. This book is about people who have devoted their entire lives to science. Their relationship with the world is complex. The irrepressible thirst for knowledge made them too dangerous. They penetrated deep into the atomic nucleus - the worldly authorities forbade it to them. They revealed the secrets of genetic chains - followed by a second ruin. The powers of the world took everything from them, separated them from the world for centuries and millennia. It was naive to believe that it would stop someone. Inaki have developed a new praxis.
')
Philosophical retreat
In his book, Neil Stevenson develops the philosophical ideas of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Gödel, and Husserl, according to which, in addition to Arb (the world in which the narration unfolds), there are many other worlds. Worlds are interconnected and information can be transmitted through connections, but only in one direction. Higher worlds serve as sources of abstract ideas (knoons) for the worlds that lie below “according to the wick”. The wick itself is a giant (possibly infinite) directed graph.
The author also reveals the mechanism of such data transfer. According to him, every human brain is a kind of distributed quantum computer that exists simultaneously in many alternative worlds. Pondering what kind of idea, the brain continuously communicates with many of its "alter ego", receiving "advice" from the worlds above "on the wick". Thus, the brain does not invent anything, but only reveals the already existing.
Residents of Arba have found another use for this mechanism. Deprived (after the second ruin) of any technical equipment, the Evenriks (supporters of the idea of the primacy of semantics over syntax) thought about the mechanisms of thought. Having developed these ideas, they discovered the possibility of influencing the world around them with thought itself. Of all the possible alternatives to any event, the incanters (adherents of this doctrine) could choose the most favorable ones for themselves.
The faanites opposing them (the followers of Proc’s ideas about the primacy of syntax over semantics) found a different way of changing reality. By manipulating memories and material evidence, the rhetors learned to change the outcome of events that had already happened in the past. Their open confrontation with incanters led to the publication of information about new praxis and the third ruin on the part of worldly authorities.
However, knowledge has not been lost. Realizing perfectly well the entire strategic value of such skills, worldly authorities allowed them to practice in three (“indestructible”) temples for millennia, fenced off from the outside world. It must be said that for the inhabitants themselves, these practices were not at all superfluous, since they made it possible to extend the lifespan by centuries, to completely unimaginable limits. Worldly authorities also did not lose. At least twice, inaki saved the world from global cataclysms, using their secret knowledge.
The author also reveals the mechanism of such data transfer. According to him, every human brain is a kind of distributed quantum computer that exists simultaneously in many alternative worlds. Pondering what kind of idea, the brain continuously communicates with many of its "alter ego", receiving "advice" from the worlds above "on the wick". Thus, the brain does not invent anything, but only reveals the already existing.
Residents of Arba have found another use for this mechanism. Deprived (after the second ruin) of any technical equipment, the Evenriks (supporters of the idea of the primacy of semantics over syntax) thought about the mechanisms of thought. Having developed these ideas, they discovered the possibility of influencing the world around them with thought itself. Of all the possible alternatives to any event, the incanters (adherents of this doctrine) could choose the most favorable ones for themselves.
The faanites opposing them (the followers of Proc’s ideas about the primacy of syntax over semantics) found a different way of changing reality. By manipulating memories and material evidence, the rhetors learned to change the outcome of events that had already happened in the past. Their open confrontation with incanters led to the publication of information about new praxis and the third ruin on the part of worldly authorities.
However, knowledge has not been lost. Realizing perfectly well the entire strategic value of such skills, worldly authorities allowed them to practice in three (“indestructible”) temples for millennia, fenced off from the outside world. It must be said that for the inhabitants themselves, these practices were not at all superfluous, since they made it possible to extend the lifespan by centuries, to completely unimaginable limits. Worldly authorities also did not lose. At least twice, inaki saved the world from global cataclysms, using their secret knowledge.
I was inspired by Neil Stevenson's novel. An idea of a new game was born in my head (and began to nibble me from the inside). I decided to take checkers as a basis. The checkers have two absolutely remarkable features: the obligatory take and the composite moves. In my opinion, these are the two things that make checkers tactically interesting. Using the rule of compulsory capture, we can lure the enemy into traps, and compound moves allow us to take several figures per turn.
Diagonal systems (like Russian Checkers ) seemed to me not very suitable for my purposes (half of the board is lost in the game!) And I allowed orthogonal moves (as in Turkish Checkers ). Also, I decided not to bother with the transformation of figures into ladies.
It was a bold decision.
The fact is that the rules of transformation in checkers are not just invented. In order for checkers to “not tread on the spot,” moves backwards to simple pieces are prohibited. Checkers move only forward! This makes the game dynamic. But what to do when the figures reach the far edge of the board? Even if they are allowed to take back (as in the old Ossetian checkers ), they will “crowd” on the last line and, for the most part, only interfere. There is a game in which this problem was solved radically:
In the “Senegalese checkers” moves are prohibited back, but there is no transformation! The checker that reached the last line is simply ... removed from the board. I decided not to use such radical decisions, but simply allowed moves and captures in all possible eight directions. This could lead to delaying the parties, but ...
In the “Senegalese checkers” moves are prohibited back, but there is no transformation! The checker that reached the last line is simply ... removed from the board. I decided not to use such radical decisions, but simply allowed moves and captures in all possible eight directions. This could lead to delaying the parties, but ...
I had a secret weapon! Inkantery! According to Neil Stevenson, they could “change the future,” choosing from all possible alternative scenarios for the development of events that is most beneficial for them. Despite the seemingly intricate, to implement such a game mechanics is quite easy.
Actually, I'm not the first to do that.
The rules of " Refusal Chess " are almost the same as those we are used to. The only difference is that the player does not perform the move immediately, but “offers” it. The opponent may prohibit the execution of the proposed move, in which case the player performs any other allowable move. Of course, this rule does not work in the case of forced moves. You can not prohibit the player to protect his "King" from the Shah . Refusal Chess is an interesting way to change the rules, but to an even greater degree I like another kind of chess.
In " Ambiguous Chess " we do not perform the move ourselves, but only “mark” the field to which we are going to go. The move itself is performed for us, the enemy, and he has the right to distort any of our good intentions in a convenient way (for example, to take a piece not as a pawn, as we intended, but as a whole queen, substituting it for attack).
In " Ambiguous Chess " we do not perform the move ourselves, but only “mark” the field to which we are going to go. The move itself is performed for us, the enemy, and he has the right to distort any of our good intentions in a convenient way (for example, to take a piece not as a pawn, as we intended, but as a whole queen, substituting it for attack).
Why is it important? Because this mechanic, like the rule “we move only forward”, allows us to struggle with the delay of the game. The side opposing the incanters (rhetoricians) "outlines" his move, marking one of his pieces, an accessible empty field or an opponent's piece. The last of the three options is a priority. As in checkers, if there is an opportunity to "eat" an enemy figure, the player must do it. Further, the incanters, on behalf of the rhetoricians, carry out a move that satisfies this mark, and then it depends only on them whether the rhetorical figures will “tread on the spot” or boldly go forward.
Regarding tags set by the speakers, there are two rules. I have already said about the first - the marking of an achievable enemy figure is a priority. The second rule is more insidious: the rhetors cannot schedule an unambiguous quiet move. The label must be installed in such a way that the incanters have more than one opportunity to complete the turn. If the rules were limited to those described above, the incanters would easily win in any game, but the rhetors have their own way of influencing reality.
Lorita suggests that here I am also not a pioneer
I already mentioned earlier about one abstruse game on a four-dimensional board. The game description looks a bit confusing, but the essence is simple. Each figure leaves a mark on the board that can be used to kill her "in the past." If an enemy figure gets to this trace, it will not only “kill” the figure that left the trace, but will also revive all the figures killed from that moment on. Here is how it looks on the plane:
As in the case of Ambiguous Chess, I consider the principle used to be more suitable for checkers than for chess games. In checkers, there are suitable events, for “rolling back” them in the past - taking figures. A figure may not leave a mark all the time, but form “key points” corresponding to the captures made (in chess, due to the specifics of their capture, this would have looked less obvious).
As in the case of Ambiguous Chess, I consider the principle used to be more suitable for checkers than for chess games. In checkers, there are suitable events, for “rolling back” them in the past - taking figures. A figure may not leave a mark all the time, but form “key points” corresponding to the captures made (in chess, due to the specifics of their capture, this would have looked less obvious).
Before performing each take (on its own behalf, and not for speaking), the incanter's figure leaves a special mark on the board. If the rhetor arrives at this mark (by a quiet move or by completing a capture, it does not matter), he will not only remove the left incanter from the board, but also “resurrect” all the figures taken after the mark has been created.
Each incanter can be killed only once. When it is taken, all the marks left by it are removed from the board. In particular, it follows from this that after performing a serial take, it is advantageous for incanters to take the risk of substitution. Having performed the forced take, the rhetors will only consolidate their success. I will not torment you and show you what happened as a result:
The game turned out to be strange. As, however, the book itself. Perhaps, at the moment, this is the best book of all that I read.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/316046/
All Articles