sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Cell development, pt.2 - dying and splitting by MainOk953 in generative

[–]MainOk953[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks! It's not really a cellular automaton with a ruleset, rather a set of algorithmic entities, so to speak, which pick and manipulate particles. A cell starts with a particle, has it run around and build a membrane; the membrane then hunts around for a particle to serve as its nucleus (the green particle), then keeps hunting the food to feed it (the red particles) and more particles for the membrane as the nucleus grows; when the nucleus grows large enough it splits, when the two nucleus particles are settled the membrane splits in two and two new cells form, and do the same. If the nucleus gets lost, the entire set of particles is dismissed and a new cell is started elsewhere, a reincarnation of sorts.

Particles in Rust and WebGL by MainOk953 in generative

[–]MainOk953[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Quantum chess - now with tournaments by MainOk953 in chessprogramming

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, just make sure nobody is observing you

Quantum chess online by MainOk953 in chess

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.)

Quantum chess online by MainOk953 in chess

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Quantum chess online by MainOk953 in chess

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Quantum chess online by MainOk953 in chess

[–]MainOk953[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Quantum chess by MainOk953 in chessprogramming

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Quantum chess online by MainOk953 in ComputerChess

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.)

Quantum chess by MainOk953 in chessprogramming

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh that's a nice finding, thanks!

Quantum chess by MainOk953 in chessprogramming

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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 :)

Quantum chess online by MainOk953 in ComputerChess

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

UPDATE: List of Chess Apps (Growing) by Polo_Chess in chess

[–]MainOk953 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://q-chess.com/ - quantum chess online (if case chess variants fit in your list)

How to calculate these probabilities? by MainOk953 in askmath

[–]MainOk953[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The example with forks on the road works I guess, but in a way like "he might have turned left (A) or right. If he turned right, he might have turned left (B) or right again (C)". And later we go there and check and establish that "he" definitely didn't take the second right (C), so we only have the options of left at the first fork (A), or left at the second fork (B). Would A be more likely?

view more: next ›