安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Your wife is in the bathroom. You know that she will sometime in the future leave the bathroom, but you don't know when. You commit to placing yourself in front of the closed door, knowing she will need to leave that way as there is no other way in or out. You wait, meaning you both travel into the future together in a quantum state. When she leaves the bathroom, you will have her blocked as two pieces cannot exist in the same space and time. In the meantime, you've left the fridge exposed and your brother-in-law has had free rein to consume all of your food.
I guess this is less of a chess problem and more of a family problem, sorry about that.
But I have been thinking on this issue. The sticking point is the predictability of the future. A chess board has a finite number of moves and any good chess player (not me) will rack up patterns of moves in advance to form gambits. The farther into the future you look, the more complex these gambits become until you need feints to trick your opponent into falling for the pattern you see as the most advantageous. The two end-points are the board in its starting state and an uncontested checkmate. Everything else in between is in flux. The start point is known and agreed upon by both players. The end point is not agreed upon, although each player could have an optimal path to reach that point along with many alternative paths.
However, you cannot execute a gambit in the future and at the same time operate one in the present without splitting time lines. You can do that in the past because the time lines all catch up to the defined present. I suppose if you could define a specific future, then you could work recursively back to the present and then into the past. Both players would have to agree on that future, which goes against competitive chess. After the mid-game progresses, it's possible to say "I will have you mated in three moves", and that may well be inevitable and agreed to by all viewers. But you can't say that at the very beginning without sounding like an insufferable knob or without world-class chess skills, or both.
To play future-chess, though, you'd have to start the first move with the white king in check and work back from there until all of the pieces returned to their initial squares. Or you'd play two boards at once, one starting with the black king in check and one starting with the white king in check, and you'd go back in time then forwards again until someone's king appeared in check once more.
First problem being, say for example you have a rook, and you want to move him forward 5 turns. Since the rook must move unobstructed, what happens if something on turn 3 moves in the way? Will the rook be taken? Will the piece that moved into the square be taken?
Secondly, with how the game's piece movement is scripted, TECHNICALLY none of the pieces have changed their movesets from 2D to 5D, they're all the same (knight moving 2 in one way and 1 in another, rook moving in straight lines unobstructed, etc). This would mean the King can move forward in time one turn, and avoid any present checkmates, making the only valid move to capture a king be to check his past, making the game a lot trickier to win, or lose, as you're always forced to move out of a check, and thus always forced to move forward in time, if nothing else. So, moving forward in timelines would create the issue of having to rescript some rules, breaking the continuity of the game.
It will completely bugger the elegance of the game in my opinion as it would essentially be an RNG.
I was thinking of maybe a three-player variant of 5D future chess. The third player is a referee/timecop. The combatant players play on their own boards and cannot see the enemy's pieces or moves. The referee would advise as to what would happen during each move, but only if there was a piece taken, and the players could put markers on their own boards where they believe the enemy pieces to be. Then, the referee would be able to control adding timelines to the game, and since they would have an understanding of the future state of the board if a player moved a piece into the future, they could advise that as well.
It would be incredibly cumbersome to play, everybody would have to have eidetic memory, and the referee would have to be both completely trustworthy and incapable of making mistakes. Other than that, simple I say. In standard 5D chess, the computer already acts as a referee, but the players can see the entire board. If the players could only see their own pieces and moves and only see the enemy when a piece is taken, then they could tell the referee to put pieces into the future and the referee would be able to see if the move was valid or not. Probably what would happen is that the player's piece would simply appear to vanish, since if it never interacted with another piece the referee would not mention it again.
this is really interesting. Does moving forward in time really move you out of check though? I feel like intuitively that if I have you checkmated legitimately in the present of any timeline that you are checkmated into the future....at least one turn into the future.
here is the logic laid out.
When a king moves into the future it can move into the same apace in the future or any space into the future it can move in the present. therefore any space it moved to in the future would still be in check. and the king would die when it arrived there. Now the checkmating player needs to make some other move but all moving in the future does is make the king invulnerable for one move and then the chekmated player can't do anything about it since they are busy moving the king.
the only way to save a legitimate chakmate on a board is to (sometimes) move into the past or to have alternate timelines intervene or escape to an alternate timeline(as opposed to creating one)
just my 2 cents.
I don't like the idea of playing with travel into board states not decided upon yet by the players.
I rationalize it by deciding that the technology that allows this time travel requires a collapsed quantum state at both ends. Knowledge of quantum states are shared across all participants.
so initial travel is only possible to the past. but since the past is inalterable based upon the current quantum state this creates a new timeline but this new timeline still has knowledge of quantum states of the "future" in a parallel timeline.
The future can only be experienced by collapsing the quantum state of the future one decision
(Per parallell timeline) at a time.
it's a mouth full but it's my head cannon.
btw....i would pay retail for a fleshed out detailed turn based tactical(or strategic) war game using these mechanics. chess is a lot of fun too but there is potential here