The basic idea is to have a game of chess (or any abstract strategy
game) and at least one side (if not both sides) collectively votes on
what the move should be. In event of a tie for votes, the first
proposed tied move would be the move the side would make. During a
given time period, people are allowed to change their votes.

In a single player vs mode (Kasparov vs the World) you have a top
player take on the world, or a group, or like the Internet. In the
case of the Internet, people could use computers to come up with
moves.

The basic idea is to have a game of chess (or any abstract strategy
game) and at least one side (if not both sides) collectively votes on
what the move should be. In event of a tie for votes, the first
proposed tied move would be the move the side would make. During a
given time period, people are allowed to change their votes.

Any comments here? We may have something that is doable.

In article <217f16cf-a509-48b5-b529-54e98d0d0... at (no spam) r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Rich Hutnik <richardhut... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

The basic idea is to have a game of chess (or any abstract strategy
game) and at least one side (if not both sides) collectively votes on
what the move should be. In event of a tie for votes, the first
proposed tied move would be the move the side would make. During a
given time period, people are allowed to change their votes.

In a single player vs mode (Kasparov vs the World) you have a top
player take on the world, or a group, or like the Internet. In the
case of the Internet, people could use computers to come up with
moves.

The site chessgames.com already does this. Their "World" team has
already taken on and beaten correspondence GM Arno Nickel, and
current US Champion Yury Shulman; a game with correspondence World
Champion Geurt Jan Timmerman is in its final stages, and expected
to be yet another win. (A rematch with Nickel is upcoming.)

The basic idea is to have a game of chess (or any abstract strategy
game) and at least one side (if not both sides) collectively votes on
what the move should be. In event of a tie for votes, the first
proposed tied move would be the move the side would make. During a
given time period, people are allowed to change their votes.

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Interne...

Check this thread out on the Chess Variant site.

The basic idea is to have a game of chess (or any abstract strategy
game) and at least one side (if not both sides) collectively votes on
what the move should be.

Rich Hutnik wrote:

The basic idea is to have a game of chess (or any abstract strategy
game) and at least one side (if not both sides) collectively votes on
what the move should be. In event of a tie for votes, the first
proposed tied move would be the move the side would make. During a
given time period, people are allowed to change their votes.

Or there's Nomic, where you're voting on the rules you play by...

On Jul 4, 2:20 am, Rich Hutnik <richardhut... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Interne...

Check this thread out on the Chess Variant site.

By the way, I have kicked the idea of chess moves determined by voting
around further, where a crowd plays a game of chess collectively. I
am looking at "Vox Populi Chess":
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=VoxPopuliChess

The idea here is divide the crowd up into 2 teams, and each team votes
on a move. After both sides have made a move, members of the crowd
can end up switching sides. Points are scored for staying with one
side or another. It needs work, but that is the idea. Please
comment.

Comments?

Normally I will want the side I am on to win the game. If I believe my
understanding of the position is greater than that of my team-mates, I
will of course vote for what I think is the best move. But generally I
won't believe this, and should then abstain.

Things are more interesting if I plan on switching sides after this
move. So I want the side I am voting with to pick a bad move. How
should I go about this? If I just vote for a very bad move, it won't
get it selected. I have to look for a bad move which might plausibly be
selected.

Nick

Things are more interesting if I plan on switching sides after this
move. So I want the side I am voting with to pick a bad move. How
should I go about this? If I just vote for a very bad move, it won't
get it selected. I have to look for a bad move which might plausibly be
selected.

If the goal is finding the person in the audience with the most skill,
I think you need to take into account how many people are on the side
switched to. If everyone has defected to white except one, and that
one wins, he should win the meta-game as well.

I suggest this as a measure of an audience member's score, added for
each move: The total number of people you managed to tempt over to
your side, divided by the the number of people already on your side.
The switching player also loses one point. This keeps the game zero-
sum, which is a very good idea.

If all players end up on one side, the game is obviously over and you
just calculate the winner among the audience. If the game ends in
checkmate (pretty unlikely, I'd think), consider all members on the
losing team as having switched to the winning.

I do believe more work is needed here though, which is the reason for
discussing things.