On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:55 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > > On 5/28/2020 9:42 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > If I accidentally moved a knight wrong and neither of us noticed until a > move or two later, I broke the rules. But did I cheat? I don't think so. > That's the distinction I'm trying to draw. > > > > One of the issues is that we don't really do "equity" (we tried once, it > was complicated and interesting but I don't think it really worked). > > By which I mean, if you discover the wrong knight (and it's not a > tournament), you can discuss with the other player: what's fairer and more > equitable: leave it where it is? Put it where it should be? Go back two > moves? Start over? That would also depend on whether the misplacement > led to the loss of a Queen, how important it was to the following moves, > etc. > > We don't really do that "adjust gamestate to make up for the violation" so > we have to reduce to a common currency and just discourage by applying a > game penalty. And as soon as it's "currency" it becomes transactional (as > R. Lee's comments show). > > In fact, the first draft of the card system was meant to purposefully get > away from transactional punishment. A Green Card was meant to be a flag > and caution: "yes, you did break a rule and shouldn't have, but it didn't > really affect the game so Green". Making it a social contract that "you > really should have done that - doing that makes it less fun for all of us" > rather than "if you profited from this you can pay off the blot and not > worry". > > -G. > > Well in the great majority of chess games these days, someone would be unable to move a knight incorrectly because the game was played online and therefore the program would simply not move the piece. -- >From R. Lee
