lichess.org
Donate

How to deal with the imminent solution to antichess

http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/e3b6.html
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/

I believe the solution of antichess is very near now. Basically Professor Watkins has proven that white can win in at least all but one particular line which he is trying to prove as a white win as well. So antichess is likely to soon be a solved game. Just like checkers, solved games can still be played in a fun way between humans.

I believe it is time for us to be exposed to this information, for if we do not all get this information then those who really just want to fish for top rating in Antichess can use Watkins' lines and always play white.

Here is the communication I have with Hellball which he/she allows me to republish here:

cat_person Hellball - Today at 6:38 PM
Are you an admin of lichess, may I ask?I try to not use direct title like "Antichess is almost solved!" because despite the fact that I'm glad and excited about the solution, antichess masters and others may not think so. I do not want anyone to lose their health or be unhappy because of this, hence I believe this news should be introduced gradually. Neither Prof. Watkins nor me want to ruin the game, hence perhaps it is not optimal to remove ratings which may hurt good antichess players.

Forcing everyone to play even number of matches, considering any form of draw as black win (though this does not matter when white plays optimally, it is likely that black can never even force a draw if the last line is also proven a white win),forbidding anyone that read Watkins' solution while playing from playing any rated antichess game and other methods, on the other hand, may preserve the game and its community.

Sincerely,
cat_person
cat_person Hellball - Today at 6:42 PM
Again this is just a humble suggestion..you decide what is appropriate. I may or may not post with a banner that antichess is solved when it is done, depending on whether it is a good thing to do. But you guys, the developers, admins and mods need to know that.
Hellball cat_person - Today at 8:02 PM
That's the thing, we cannot simply 'forbid' people from playing book lines. Simply put, there is no way to determine who is a strong player and who is merely reading off a book line.This is for the best. Otherwise, the internet would be an entirely surveilled, centrally controlled entity. Point is, we cannot know if someone has this knowledge. And simply banning them for having it would be cruel and contrary to the mission of promoting the game and a spirit of learning and improvement among players, but forever dooming them to be patzers.

Antichess can continue existing as a fun variant, but it can no longer be a competitive sport. Because that way you are setting everyone up for disappointment and anger at mod indifference or similar -- when in fact, the game is basically solved from start to finish.

Please note all of the above is hypothetical, assuming the last line is solved.

It's worth noting there are other variants of losing chess/antichess which change small rules. It may be worth looking into them. I'm the variant meister so it should be my job. I should really buy D.B. Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants one of these days, but man it's expensive. :)

Of course all decisions ultimately lie with Thibault, but that's my input. I can expand on the philosophy behind it if you want but my time is not infinite.

By the way, feel free to republish your message (and my message) in the forum. In general, we prefer such deliberations to take place in public. Virtually all development happens on the public #lichess IRC channel and occasionally on the forum (though we find that input to be, well, generally less constructive).

We should decide what is appropriate once antichess is solved, which I believe will happen within one month.
One easy solution: don't let White play 1. e3.

Given the great number of 1. e3 b5 2. Bxb5 Bb7 games here, in an opening that was solved 15 years ago, I can't think the overall proof status will change the mode of play too much.

Another online book is suicidechess.ca which has copied over some of Watkins' work and is more broad, but both this and Francu's site don't necessarily give you the whole line but truncate it when it becomes "simple" for a computer. For that matter, Watkins only puts you into 4 piece tablebases which are not always easy to figure out for us humans.

As for the proof itself, if you look at the 1. e3 b6 page that Watkins has, you will note that things have been "close" before (with 2. Ba6), but then he backtracked. This entire 2. a4 idea is rather new to the Antichess world.
Solution:

1. Implement Antichess AI so stockfish can analyze them.
2. Mark cheaters as cheating.
That pie rule is brilliant, and it would instantly solve all antichess problems.
Kinda off topic, but lichess needs double chess. Always wanted to try it, and capa himself said it was great.
Would the 960 antichess variant be a rated variant under one's 960 rating, antichess rating, or would there be a whole new rating called antichess960?

I will admit, I'd probably enjoy 960 Antichess more than regular Antichess, but creating new variants out of every existing variant by making them random seems ambitious, unnecessary, and a bit like playing God.
There is no need to discuss that details about ratings right now.
Firstly lichess devs have to make their decision on antichess, in principle.
True.

I was only asking to see what you thought about it, as you are the one who brought it up.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.