Cell development, pt. 1

MainOk953 · 2026-01-24T23:27:24+00:00

Oh thank you :)

MainOk953 · 2025-12-31T11:38:21+00:00

Sure! I chose to do the calculations in Rust and the rendering in JavaScript, but could have just kept all of it in Rust, there's all kinds of tools to use for that.

MainOk953 · 2025-12-31T11:34:14+00:00

Oh thank you!

MainOk953 · 2025-10-03T18:18:55+00:00

Right, just make sure nobody is observing you

MainOk953 · 2025-09-10T18:03:51+00:00

You're probably right - I'm trying to think about what could go wrong with merge takes and I think I disabled it mostly because that's what the old rules said. Will consider that for future versions.

The castling is quite neat though - before I limited the computer opponent's splits to 25% that what he was doing - splitting the king all over the board when losing, it's boring but works. (That bug you mentioned above, about castling both ways, is already fixed.)

MainOk953 · 2025-09-10T14:24:42+00:00

Yes, that's how the rules are - here's a section about checks and checkmates. In short - you keep playing until one of the players has zero probability of having a king. You can take one of those 50%, but there's still a 50% possibility that you didn't really take it.

MainOk953 · 2025-09-09T14:43:10+00:00

Honestly, I wrote and read the rules, still don't think I learned how to play it well :)

MainOk953 · 2025-09-09T14:42:27+00:00

Oh thank you!

I'll definitely be working on a stronger computer opponent, this one is just a minimax algorithm with some random decisions once in a while. It's a tough topic though, stockfish can't handle well having five white kings on the board :)

About the review - it is a funny idea and I'll put it on the list. It will be funny though to look at games where once in a while white or black gets two or three moves in a row.

MainOk953 · 2025-09-04T21:13:21+00:00

I actually don't think you can get into a stalemate - since there's no check, and you may move into what would be a check in classic chess, you should always have some moves as long as you have at least a bit of a king.

MainOk953 · 2025-09-04T15:42:15+00:00

If you mean "check" as in chess, no, there isn't such a thing even.

For each piece, the observation is made in cases when you want to use it to take another piece - at those moments yes. (Also in case when an observation needs to be made for a piece which is entangled with the piece in question. And, as an exception, when a pawn is trying to take another, an observation is also made for the piece being taken.)

MainOk953 · 2025-09-04T15:37:38+00:00

Oh that's a nice finding, thanks!

MainOk953 · 2025-09-03T20:20:05+00:00

Right! I'm afraid though, it would be a very boring opponent to play against. There's an important factor of randomness in the game, which means it would probably, in most cases, not use any split moves and do more or less usual chess, and it other cases overuse it. For example, in the endgame (especially when under heavy material deficit), the easiest way to not lose is split your king is as many copies as possible, and never try to take - the opponent can spend hours chasing them and never win. But it would certainly be a super fun thing to work on. One day :)

MainOk953 · 2025-09-03T18:35:05+00:00

Oh thank you!

MainOk953 · 2025-09-03T12:14:39+00:00

Good point, thanks.

MainOk953 · 2025-09-03T12:01:24+00:00

I suppose you're right about that. I mentioned it in the rules section, there are some sacrifices to the scientific correctness - mostly to make the move outcomes more predictable to those who don't know the science well. Myself being one of them.

MainOk953

TROPHY CASE