Makes me curious to see a game between humans where non-sensible moves are defined in some objective way and forbidden by guardrail AI. Like, not even considered a legal move by the computer UI.
Would this extend the games of humans to around 64 moves on average? What would the experience of playing such a game be for low ELO humans? Confusion about why certain moves were forbidden, probably.
I agree this variation would lengthen the game. The experience would change for sure for all human players.
An objectively losing human player may intentionally play objectively bad moves that lengthen a game and complicate it. It’s a learned skill that some players have honed better than others.
In this variation that skill is neutralized so I imagine elos would be different enough to have different player rankings.
Makes me curious to see a game between humans where non-sensible moves are defined in some objective way and forbidden by guardrail AI. Like, not even considered a legal move by the computer UI.
Would this extend the games of humans to around 64 moves on average? What would the experience of playing such a game be for low ELO humans? Confusion about why certain moves were forbidden, probably.
I agree this variation would lengthen the game.
The experience would change for sure for all human players.
An objectively losing human player may intentionally play objectively bad moves that lengthen a game and complicate it. It’s a learned skill that some players have honed better than others.
In this variation that skill is neutralized so I imagine elos would be different enough to have different player rankings.