Chess + Crypto

[MarketNeutral]

A chess engine would never suggest moves like those from this masterpiece of aesthetics and artistry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game

[Bitcoin Magazine]

so to hack it, all i have to do is create computer opponents, and put all the money i create in a bank?

[BetMoose]

I really like the idea of integrating online games with bitcoin. As others have said, it absolutely needs to be cheat-proof, so chess is sort of out of the question. Also, why do you need to mine anything? Why not just place simple bets. If a user leaves, they lose.. (maybe add an hour timer in case they lost internet or want to 'come back' into the game because of an accident..)

Got any other game ideas?

[Bit_Happy]

....

5 computers and a Red Bull?
The most I would ever need would be 3 or 4.

[Joe_Bauers]

....

5 computers and a Red Bull?
The most I would ever need would be 3 or 4.

Red bulls?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

There is a way to circumnavigate around the cheating issue: Let 'em!

If Crypto-chess-coins is going to dole out coins based on some exponential growth system, then along with each game getting harder and harder to play, assuming one is playing against a computer which Ccc controls, Ccc will also control the clock as to how long it'll take before it makes its next move against each and every "miner". Thus, it doesn't matter how long it'll take for a miner to make s/he's move.

The onus will then be on the miners to obtain the best chess program available to garner more wins over time. At some point, when such is more difficult to obtain, more powerful chess programs will need to be created. Imagine, in the future ordering said programs/systems/rigs from Rook Labs or Bishop Studios or Knight Mills or Queens with Clubs.

Who knows! At the end of the day some über-chess program my be devised that wouldn't have been created earlier due to the advent of Crypto-chess-coins.

Now, one's able to envision Solitaire Coin, Backgammon Coin, or even Puzzle Coin, all pegged against a computer opponent with a dual difficulty component incorporated, adjusted depending on the payout schedule.

During the penning of the last paragraph, I envisioned something pertaining to Puzzle Coin, but I see that http://puzzlecoin.com/ is already taken, but from the looks of the site, it could easily be re-branded.

Picture sometime like below that has to be solved via moving the pieces into place, then rewarded once completed. See the beauty of the example? Advertiser's logos (with generated links once solved, then also emailed) are the puzzles.

[b¡tco¡n]

There is a way to circumnavigate around the cheating issue: Let 'em!

If Crypto-chess-coins is going to dole out coins based on some exponential growth system, then along with each game getting harder and harder to play, assuming one is playing against a computer which Ccc controls, Ccc will also control the clock as to how long it'll take before it makes its next move against each and every "miner". Thus, it doesn't matter how long it'll take for a miner to make s/he's move.

The onus will then be on the miners to obtain the best chess program available to garner more wins over time. At some point, when such is more difficult to obtain, more powerful chess programs will need to be created. Imagine, in the future ordering said programs/systems/rigs from Rook Labs or Bishop Studios or Knight Mills or Queens with Clubs.

Who knows! At the end of the day some über-chess program my be devised that wouldn't have been created earlier due to the advent of Crypto-chess-coins.

Now, one's able to envision Solitaire Coin, Backgammon Coin, or even Puzzle Coin, all pegged against a computer opponent with a dual difficulty component incorporated, adjusted depending on the payout schedule.

During the penning of the last paragraph, I envisioned something pertaining to Puzzle Coin, but I see that http://puzzlecoin.com/ is already taken, but from the looks of the site, it could easily be re-branded.

Picture sometime like below that has to be solved via moving the pieces into place, then rewarded once completed. See the beauty of the example? Advertiser's logos (with generated links once solved, then also emailed) are the puzzles.

I agree!

It now becomes a contest of who can either write the best chess program and/or throw computing power at it.

One way is to use the chess scoring system, and the nodes accept the block created by the highest scoring address at the time.

Nodes can verify all games and scores quickly from the genesis game of course.

Any newcomer who is good can quickly rise to the top due to how the chess scoring works, but as they get near the top they need to beat the best continually to get the top score.

There are a lot of security things to be thought of e.g. shill players who lose on purpose to boost another players score.

There is no need to have difficulty adjustment because it is always as difficult as whoever is playing at the time. And there is an financial incentive for miners as with bitcoin so plenty of "hash power". Or should I say "horse power".

I'm a coder and be interested in helping develop something like this, a prototype at least.

Edit:

Man this is really interesting -E.g.  I just thought would you build a program to try and win all the time or not? Winning all the time would take more resources, so you play less games. Or do you play more games and win 90% of the time. Which would give you a higher score? So much scope for miners to think rather than just throw money at asics like you do with bitcoin. Infact asics would be a disadvantage because you can't change the algorithm when a better one comes out next week.

[ib927]

I was thinking of having 2 parts to mining.

* While your playing, transaction processing is running in the background using your CPU. (can it be limited to smartphones?)
* After the game is done, the network checks your game log against the games previously played. If your game is unique, you earn a coin.

So in essence you are always mining, but only get rewarded probabilistically (instead of probability and effort).

Betting on the other hand is something optional.

[b¡tco¡n]

I'm up for coding this. Anyone want to help?

All for fun not profit of course  

[Armando]

Great idea! There are also other fun turn-by-turn games, that can "live" over blockchain like Huntercoin. HUC is little bit slow for action game, but something like chess, monopoly etc will perfectly fit!

[Misesian]

If you had some software that could analyse skill level and then match players accordingly could that deal with cheaters? If there is software out there people can use to cheat then we must be able to analyse skill level too.

[Light]

The major problem I can see with this idea is that people will simply use chess engines against one another and then it won't be a game of skill anymore - much rather a game of who has the best engine and access to large amounts of computational power. Would be nice to see Bitcoin integration with some other skill based games though.

[jonald_fyookball]

If you had some software that could analyse skill level and then match players accordingly could that deal with cheaters? If there is software out there people can use to cheat then we must be able to analyse skill level too.

Yes there are algorithms which can detect likelihood of cheating based on your rating.
They work great, but you can never prove 100% if someone is cheating or not,
and proof is required when money is involved and therefore I don't think it would help.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

If you had some software that could analyse skill level and then match players accordingly could that deal with cheaters? If there is software out there people can use to cheat then we must be able to analyse skill level too.

Yes there are algorithms which can detect likelihood of cheating based on your rating.
They work great, but you can never prove 100% if someone is cheating or not,
and proof is required when money is involved and therefore I don't think it would help.

Like I said, let 'em cheat, but, in essence, there is no cheating because Ccc controls the clock. At the end of the game, a player is either rewarded with 0 Ccc due to a lose, 0.5 Ccc for a stalemate, or 1 Ccc for a win.

A player possessing a great chess program may be able to amass more wins, but due to how long it takes Ccc to make its next move, Ccc controls the payout schedule. After X blocks/games, the difficulty, read clock setting, is adjusted determined by how many players, how many wins, and/or other parameters.

For shits and giggles, a tally is kept on the main site to show how games were played to day, how many are in progress, along with total loses, wins, and stalemates (possibly, further broken down by countries).

Of course, at first the games are relatively easy to win, along with being played relatively quickly. But, as more and more blocks of wins occur, the games get more difficult to win, coupled with Ccc taking more time to make its next move.

Shortly, down the road, few will be physically playing the game, though that's always an option, dependent on moves taking ~1 minute or ~5+ minutes. Later, as the difficulty increases, 10/20/etc. minutes between moves become problematic, thus would already be in the bot-vs-bot stage.

Proof of Work, is a given with Ccc. Thus, no issues there.

No pre-mining/playing, with the exception of showing proof-of-concept prior to the official beta release.

I'm just thinking out loud, hoping to see Ccc come to fruition.

~Bruno Kucinskas

[ib927]

Or we can just add a CAPTCHA at the beginning of a game...

[jonald_fyookball]

If you had some software that could analyse skill level and then match players accordingly could that deal with cheaters? If there is software out there people can use to cheat then we must be able to analyse skill level too.

Yes there are algorithms which can detect likelihood of cheating based on your rating.
They work great, but you can never prove 100% if someone is cheating or not,
and proof is required when money is involved and therefore I don't think it would help.

Like I said, let 'em cheat, but, in essence, there is no cheating because Ccc controls the clock. At the end of the game, a player is either rewarded with 0 Ccc due to a lose, 0.5 Ccc for a stalemate, or 1 Ccc for a win.

A player possessing a great chess program may be able to amass more wins, but due to how long it takes Ccc to make its next move, Ccc controls the payout schedule. After X blocks/games, the difficulty, read clock setting, is adjusted determined by how many players, how many wins, and/or other parameters.

For shits and giggles, a tally is kept on the main site to show how games were played to day, how many are in progress, along with total loses, wins, and stalemates (possibly, further broken down by countries).

Of course, at first the games are relatively easy to win, along with being played relatively quickly. But, as more and more blocks of wins occur, the games get more difficult to win, coupled with Ccc taking more time to make its next move.

Shortly, down the road, few will be physically playing the game, though that's always an option, dependent on moves taking ~1 minute or ~5+ minutes. Later, as the difficulty increases, 10/20/etc. minutes between moves become problematic, thus would already be in the bot-vs-bot stage.

Proof of Work, is a given with Ccc. Thus, no issues there.

No pre-mining/playing, with the exception of showing proof-of-concept prior to the official beta release.

I'm just thinking out loud, hoping to see Ccc come to fruition.

~Bruno Kucinskas

yup, quickly becomes computer chess.

[smooth]

Anyone can download a computer program that can make a move in a second that would beat 99% of players out there.

You will always have cheating in online chess. 

It is however a (possibly) good way to incentivize creating technology to win chess games, mostly against other technology, if you think that is interesting. (In 2014, probably not.) Go might be better.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

If you had some software that could analyse skill level and then match players accordingly could that deal with cheaters? If there is software out there people can use to cheat then we must be able to analyse skill level too.

Yes there are algorithms which can detect likelihood of cheating based on your rating.
They work great, but you can never prove 100% if someone is cheating or not,
and proof is required when money is involved and therefore I don't think it would help.

Like I said, let 'em cheat, but, in essence, there is no cheating because Ccc controls the clock. At the end of the game, a player is either rewarded with 0 Ccc due to a lose, 0.5 Ccc for a stalemate, or 1 Ccc for a win.

A player possessing a great chess program may be able to amass more wins, but due to how long it takes Ccc to make its next move, Ccc controls the payout schedule. After X blocks/games, the difficulty, read clock setting, is adjusted determined by how many players, how many wins, and/or other parameters.

For shits and giggles, a tally is kept on the main site to show how games were played to day, how many are in progress, along with total loses, wins, and stalemates (possibly, further broken down by countries).

Of course, at first the games are relatively easy to win, along with being played relatively quickly. But, as more and more blocks of wins occur, the games get more difficult to win, coupled with Ccc taking more time to make its next move.

Shortly, down the road, few will be physically playing the game, though that's always an option, dependent on moves taking ~1 minute or ~5+ minutes. Later, as the difficulty increases, 10/20/etc. minutes between moves become problematic, thus would already be in the bot-vs-bot stage.

Proof of Work, is a given with Ccc. Thus, no issues there.

No pre-mining/playing, with the exception of showing proof-of-concept prior to the official beta release.

I'm just thinking out loud, hoping to see Ccc come to fruition.

~Bruno Kucinskas

yup, quickly becomes computer chess.

...Of which, is not a bad thing.

What if one were able to pick any completed game, picking some move round as either black or white, then resume play, either playing sans a bot or bot-vs-bot.

Or, what if a player picks some completed game that was lost, resuming play at some point where the score was relatively close (within some %, that is), and turns it into a win, thus enabling the player to earn 2 Ccc for h/his efforts.

If it still results in a lost, some future player can pick it up at the exact same point to see if s/he can turn it into a win to now earn 4 Ccc. Of course, each iteration would definitely take more time between moves.

Again, just thinking out loud, for I love this project.

~Bruno Kucinskas

[MarketNeutral]

ChessCoin would never work, even if it did work. 


Kasparov and Carlsen:
"What makes you think we have over 51% of the hashing power?"

[Lorenzo]

ChessCoin would never work, even if it did work. 


IBM:
"What makes you think we have over 51% of the hashing power?"