December 1, 2016 at 09:12Strange games
“Well, if you look like they’ve drunk, you know more about them than me,” I said. - I somehow came across such a lively wording: they say, rhetoricians knew how to change the past and did it with pleasure; the incanters could change the future, but they resorted to their skill extremely reluctantly ... ...
- They had to change the future in response to the actions of the rhetoricians.
Neil Stevenson "Anathem"
Strange books prompt me to make strange games. "Anathem" by Neil Stevenson is no exception. My article is one big spoiler for this work. 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, who 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. An insatiable thirst for knowledge made them too dangerous. They penetrated deep into the atomic nucleus - worldly authorities forbade them to do so. They revealed the secrets of the genetic chains - followed by a second ruin. The powers of the world took everything from them, fenced them off from the world for centuries and millennia. It was naive to believe that this would stop anyone. The Inaki 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 story unfolds), there are many other worlds. The worlds are interconnected and information can be transmitted through communications, but only in one direction. Higher worlds serve as sources of abstract ideas (knoons) for the worlds below “by wick”. The wick itself is a gigantic (possibly infinite) oriented graph.
The author reveals the mechanism of such data transfer. According to him, each human brain is a kind of distributed quantum computer that exists simultaneously in many alternative worlds. Pondering any idea, the brain continuously communicates with many of its “alter ego”, receiving “advice” from the worlds above “the wick”. Thus, the brain does not invent anything, but only opens up an existing one.
Residents of Arba have found a different use for this mechanism. Deprived (after the second ruin) of any technical equipment, Evenenedrikans (adherents 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 by thought itself. Of all the possible alternatives to any event, the incanters (adherents of this teaching) could choose the most favorable for themselves.
Opposing phaantitians (followers of the ideas of Prots about the primacy of syntax over semantics) have found a different way of changing reality. By manipulating memories and material evidence, the rhetoricians learned to change the outcome of events already happened in the past. Their open clash with incancers led to the publication of information about new praxis and the third ruin by the secular authorities.
However, knowledge was not lost. Well aware of the strategic value of such skills, worldly authorities allowed them to be practiced in three (“indestructible”) temples for thousands of years fenced off from the outside world. I must say that for their inhabitants themselves, these practices were not at all superfluous, since they allowed to extend the life span by centuries, to completely unimaginable limits. The mundane authorities also paid off. At least twice, the Inaks saved the world from global cataclysms, using their secret knowledge.
The author reveals the mechanism of such data transfer. According to him, each human brain is a kind of distributed quantum computer that exists simultaneously in many alternative worlds. Pondering any idea, the brain continuously communicates with many of its “alter ego”, receiving “advice” from the worlds above “the wick”. Thus, the brain does not invent anything, but only opens up an existing one.
Residents of Arba have found a different use for this mechanism. Deprived (after the second ruin) of any technical equipment, Evenenedrikans (adherents 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 by thought itself. Of all the possible alternatives to any event, the incanters (adherents of this teaching) could choose the most favorable for themselves.
Opposing phaantitians (followers of the ideas of Prots about the primacy of syntax over semantics) have found a different way of changing reality. By manipulating memories and material evidence, the rhetoricians learned to change the outcome of events already happened in the past. Their open clash with incancers led to the publication of information about new praxis and the third ruin by the secular authorities.
However, knowledge was not lost. Well aware of the strategic value of such skills, worldly authorities allowed them to be practiced in three (“indestructible”) temples for thousands of years fenced off from the outside world. I must say that for their inhabitants themselves, these practices were not at all superfluous, since they allowed to extend the life span by centuries, to completely unimaginable limits. The mundane authorities also paid off. At least twice, the Inaks saved the world from global cataclysms, using their secret knowledge.
I was inspired by Neil Stevenson's novel. The idea of a new game was born in my head (and began to gnaw at me from the inside). As a basis, I decided to take checkers . Drafts have two absolutely remarkable features: the obligatory capture and compound moves. In my opinion, these are exactly the two things that make checkers tactically interesting. Using the rule of compulsory capture, we can lure the enemy into traps, and composite moves allow you to take several pieces per move.
The diagonal systems (like " Russian Drafts ") 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 Drafts "). Also, I decided not to bother with turning the figures into ladies.
It was a bold decision.
The fact is that the rules of transformations in checkers were not just invented. In order to prevent the checkers from “stamping on their feet”, back moves to simple pieces are prohibited. Checkers move only forward! This makes the game dynamic. But what to do when the pieces reach the far edge of the board? Even if you allow them 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 radically solved:
In "Senegalese Checkers" backward moves are forbidden, but there are no transformations! A checker that has 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 eight possible directions. This could lead to a delay of parties, but ...
In "Senegalese Checkers" backward moves are forbidden, but there are no transformations! A checker that has 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 eight possible directions. This could lead to a delay of parties, but ...
I had a secret weapon! Incanters! According to Neil Stevenson, they could “change the future”, choosing from all possible alternative scenarios the most profitable for themselves. Despite the apparent complexity, it is quite easy to implement such game mechanics.
Actually, I am not the first to do this.
The rules for Refusal Chess are pretty much the same as those we are all used to. The only difference is that the player does not execute the move immediately, but “offers” it. The opponent may prohibit the execution of the proposed move, in which case the player performs any other acceptable move. Of course, this rule does not work in the case of forced moves. You can not forbid a player to defend his "King" from the check . Refusal Chess is an interesting variation of the rules, but to an even greater extent I like another kind of chess.
In the " Ambiguous Chess " we do not execute the move ourselves, but only "mark" the field we are going to go to. The move itself is carried out for us, the enemy, and he has the right to pervert any of our good intentions in a way convenient for himself (for example, to take a piece not by a pawn, as we gathered, but by the whole queen, substituting it under attack).
In the " Ambiguous Chess " we do not execute the move ourselves, but only "mark" the field we are going to go to. The move itself is carried out for us, the enemy, and he has the right to pervert any of our good intentions in a way convenient for himself (for example, to take a piece not by a pawn, as we gathered, but by the whole queen, substituting it under attack).
Why is it important? Yes, because this mechanics, as well as the rule “move only forward,” allows you to fight the delay of the game. The side opposing the incancers (rhetoricians) “outlines” its course by marking one of its pieces, an accessible empty field or the opponent’s piece. The last of the three options is a priority. As in checkers, if it is possible to “eat” an enemy piece, the player must do so. Further, the incanters, on behalf of the rhetoricians, carry out a move that satisfies this mark, and here it depends only on them whether the figures of the rhetoricians “stagnate” or boldly go forward.
There are two rules for labels set by rhetoricians. I already said about the first - marking an achievable enemy figure is a priority. The second rule is more insidious: rhetoricians cannot set up a definitequiet move. The mark must be set so that there is more than one opportunity for the incanter to complete the move. If the rules were limited to those described above, incanters would easily win any game, but rhetoricians have their own way of influencing reality.
Lorites suggest that here I am also not a pioneer
I already mentioned earlier about one abstruse game on a four-dimensional board. The description of the game looks a bit confusing, but the point is simple. Each piece leaves a mark on the board that can be used to kill it “in the past”. If an enemy figure reaches this trace, it will not only “kill” the figure that left the mark, but will also revive all the figures killed from that moment. Here's what it looks like on a plane:
As with Ambiguous Chess, I think the principle used is more suitable for checkers than for chess games. In checkers, there are suitable events for taking them back in the past - taking pieces. A piece may not leave a permanent trace, but form “key points” corresponding to the completed captures (in chess, due to the specifics of their capturing, this would look less obvious).
As with Ambiguous Chess, I think the principle used is more suitable for checkers than for chess games. In checkers, there are suitable events for taking them back in the past - taking pieces. A piece may not leave a permanent trace, but form “key points” corresponding to the completed captures (in chess, due to the specifics of their capturing, this would look less obvious).
Before each capture is taken (on its own behalf, and not for rhetoricians), the figure of the incanter leaves a special mark on the board. If the rhetorician gets to this mark (in a slow motion or completing the capture - it doesn’t matter), he will not only remove the incanter who has left it from the board, but also “resurrect” all the pieces taken after the mark was created.
Each incanter can be killed only once. When he is taken from the board, all marks left by him are also deleted. In particular, it follows from this that after performing a serial capture, it is beneficial for the incancers to take a hit. Performing a forced capture, the rhetoricians will only consolidate their success. I will not torment you and show you what happened as a result:
The game turned out to be weird. Like, however, the book itself. Perhaps at the moment, this is the best book of all that I read.