http://btcchess.tk/ (will be .com soon)
Use my ref code when you sign up
rt3bn4w0xf6goeqo3y8qi9 
Topic: Online Chess Game (Read 3736 times)
Not to distract business from that chess game, there's a really cool pvp one with betting here:
http://btcchess.tk/ (will be .com soon)
Use my ref code when you sign up rt3bn4w0xf6goeqo3y8qi9
http://btcchess.tk/ (will be .com soon)
Use my ref code when you sign up
rt3bn4w0xf6goeqo3y8qi9
Back in the days, I ported it to j2me and even the palm pilot. Maybe a mobile client for Android, or so, would be an idea...
its being done in c++ , but maybe we could add bitcoin to it like i did with bitcoin island / who wants to be bitcoiner for your java sources ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-island-game-ver-100-win-005-btc-25x-winners-game-over-64425
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/who-wants-to-be-a-bitcoiner-ver-100-bitcoin-quiz-game-77366
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-island-game-ver-100-win-005-btc-25x-winners-game-over-64425
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/who-wants-to-be-a-bitcoiner-ver-100-bitcoin-quiz-game-77366
I once wrote some Java sources for Chess...if you need help...
this is what we are developing at bitover.com , games like chess with bitcoin prizes and tournament rooms / chat rooms no need for registration
I just wondered, if it might be more fun, if teams could play against each other. Make some chat room for each team, where users would discuss their next move.
1 minute games only -- prevents cheating.
In a 5 minute game, or even a 2 minute game, you can cheat pretty easily. In a 1 minute game with an average of 30-40 moves, there's just no way you could cheat without running out of time (unless your opponent is a sponge).
In a 5 minute game, or even a 2 minute game, you can cheat pretty easily. In a 1 minute game with an average of 30-40 moves, there's just no way you could cheat without running out of time (unless your opponent is a sponge).
Or why play a complete game, at all, from start to finish? What if two players are each flashed identical 10 screens (one at a time) of a chessboard layout with X seconds to act? The optimal move is already predetermined, thus enabling a scoring mechanism. Best score wins, but in the event of a tie, a sudden death match starts immediately. For instance, upon completely the 10th move, the score is tied at 8 wins/2 loses. Both players are immediately aware that they are in sudden death mode with only X-Y seconds to now complete their moves on the subsequent chessboard layouts.
Also, each opponent's user name is anonymize, therefore not knowing who you're playing.
Also on the site, there should be a leader board with daily, weekly, monthly, etc., prizes. Feel free to monetize the leader board pages with rotating banner ads or the like.
~Bruno~
I'm very impressed and agree with the essay on the site.
I agree with BTC_Bear's objection - by requiring registration, you are reinstating most of the friction you took away by avoiding credit cards.
But I have a different solution - use the same model as https://www.coindl.com/. Click a button, get an address, pay, play. This would work even better with a Bitcoin URI where you just click it and your client fills in the address, label and amount.
I agree with BTC_Bear's objection - by requiring registration, you are reinstating most of the friction you took away by avoiding credit cards.
But I have a different solution - use the same model as https://www.coindl.com/. Click a button, get an address, pay, play. This would work even better with a Bitcoin URI where you just click it and your client fills in the address, label and amount.
1 minute games only -- prevents cheating.
In a 5 minute game, or even a 2 minute game, you can cheat pretty easily. In a 1 minute game with an average of 30-40 moves, there's just no way you could cheat without running out of time (unless your opponent is a sponge).
Or unless you build a bot that interacts with the interface directly, in which case, you could thoroughly pwn most any opponent.In a 5 minute game, or even a 2 minute game, you can cheat pretty easily. In a 1 minute game with an average of 30-40 moves, there's just no way you could cheat without running out of time (unless your opponent is a sponge).
True. Anybody who has Rybka would likely take all, always.
1 minute games only -- prevents cheating.
In a 5 minute game, or even a 2 minute game, you can cheat pretty easily. In a 1 minute game with an average of 30-40 moves, there's just no way you could cheat without running out of time (unless your opponent is a sponge).
Or unless you build a bot that interacts with the interface directly, in which case, you could thoroughly pwn most any opponent. In a 5 minute game, or even a 2 minute game, you can cheat pretty easily. In a 1 minute game with an average of 30-40 moves, there's just no way you could cheat without running out of time (unless your opponent is a sponge).
1 minute games only -- prevents cheating.
In a 5 minute game, or even a 2 minute game, you can cheat pretty easily. In a 1 minute game with an average of 30-40 moves, there's just no way you could cheat without running out of time (unless your opponent is a sponge).
In a 5 minute game, or even a 2 minute game, you can cheat pretty easily. In a 1 minute game with an average of 30-40 moves, there's just no way you could cheat without running out of time (unless your opponent is a sponge).
nice
If you can't circumnavigate around the bot issue, embrace it! Base whatever business model you have in mind, but center it around players/users using bots. May the best bot win! You can even easily incorporate checkers, backgammon, etc., all of which would be bots vs bots. Now, if you could somehow get those watching the games involved in some way, having them inject bitcoins into the mix, let's say, you'll really have something to write home about.
~Bruno~
Dude, I love it! Some people might manually make the moves in a chess program, while others will program complex bots that actually interact with the web interface itself. People might write bots and sell them to others who want to play, etc. Tweakable variables. ~Bruno~
Definitely go with a tournament or perhaps individuals betting btc!
Hmmm, the problem is that also a bot is able to cheat, and it can be faster than an human.
- You can add a button to call an admin to give a look to a player.
- You can add webcam ( there must be an option to enable/disable it, it can be also a setting where both have to agree before starting the match ), so both will be able to see each other ( but they will lose anonymity )
- You can add a button to call an admin to give a look to a player.
- You can add webcam ( there must be an option to enable/disable it, it can be also a setting where both have to agree before starting the match ), so both will be able to see each other ( but they will lose anonymity )
They wouldn't lose anonymity if they were wearing a mask, but I did recognized a flaw even in this plan within two seconds of reading the post. You may be able to view your whole opponent's body (hands, feet, etc.), but what you won't see is the second person inputting info into a computer, thus still playing a bot.
But, there's a solution!
If you can't circumnavigate around the bot issue, embrace it! Base whatever business model you have in mind, but center it around players/users using bots. May the best bot win! You can even easily incorporate checkers, backgammon, etc., all of which would be bots vs bots. Now, if you could somehow get those watching the games involved in some way, having them inject bitcoins into the mix, let's say, you'll really have something to write home about.
~Bruno~
Hmmm, the problem is that also a bot is able to cheat, and it can be faster than an human.
- You can add a button to call an admin to give a look to a player.
- You can add webcam ( there must be an option to enable/disable it, it can be also a setting where both have to agree before starting the match ), so both will be able to see each other ( but they will lose anonymity )
- You can add a button to call an admin to give a look to a player.
- You can add webcam ( there must be an option to enable/disable it, it can be also a setting where both have to agree before starting the match ), so both will be able to see each other ( but they will lose anonymity )
If I'm understanding this experiment correctly, they want people to pay to play chess on their site?
Why would I choose to do that, when I can play for free at any number of well-established sites that already have decent-sized playerbases?
Why would I choose to do that, when I can play for free at any number of well-established sites that already have decent-sized playerbases?
I can't tell you why people would pay for games like this when they can get them for free elsewhere, only that they do, and that they do at very steady and predictable rates (see above). This experiment is testing to see if Bitcoin has any chance at competing against the current premium game model. Unfortunately, for a large variety of reasons, it probably can't. Perhaps the search will continue for any compelling reason why a business should accept Bitcoin instead of, or in additional to, more traditional payment options.
On the totally separate topic of a chess wagering game, which seems to be of more immediate interest than a boring statistical analysis of revenue models, can anyone provide any suggestions for how to prevent cheating? Cheating at online chess is quite easy. Just copy your opponent's moves into a computerized chess program and mimic the computer's moves. If wagering is involved, it seems like there would be an awfully high incentive to cheat.
If I'm understanding this experiment correctly, they want people to pay to play chess on their site?
Why would I choose to do that, when I can play for free at any number of well-established sites that already have decent-sized playerbases?
Why would I choose to do that, when I can play for free at any number of well-established sites that already have decent-sized playerbases?
I can't tell you why people would pay for games like this when they can get them for free elsewhere, only that they do, and that they do at very steady and predictable rates (see above). This experiment is testing to see if Bitcoin has any chance at competing against the current premium game model. Unfortunately, for a large variety of reasons, it probably can't. Perhaps the search will continue for any compelling reason why a business should accept Bitcoin instead of, or in additional to, more traditional payment options.
On the totally separate topic of a chess wagering game, which seems to be of more immediate interest than a boring statistical analysis of revenue models, can anyone provide any suggestions for how to prevent cheating? Cheating at online chess is quite easy. Just copy your opponent's moves into a computerized chess program and mimic the computer's moves. If wagering is involved, it seems like there would be an awfully high incentive to cheat.
It can become something like PokerChess 
The first player make an offer, example:
- Start a match with 100 bitcoin in the play-wallet. ( the servive must have a wallet with all bitcoin, and another wallet to start matches, the play-wallet )
The offer go to a list with all offers of all players on the service.
If the other player wants to play, he must have the same amount of bitcoin in his play-wallet.
If 2 players went to the agreement about the match ( about the rules and play-wallet amount ), then it starts.
Now, during the game both players can make an higher bet after every move.
If someone makes an higher bet, the other one must make the same bet or higher to be able to continue the game.
( if the game has a timer, it must stop if one of the 2 players makes a new bet )
Everyone can leave the game when ever they want, but they will lose all their past bets.
The service must have all kinds of statistics about all players.
It can be possible also to open ( or not ) the match to spectators, so that they can also bet between each other.
The first player make an offer, example:
- Start a match with 100 bitcoin in the play-wallet. ( the servive must have a wallet with all bitcoin, and another wallet to start matches, the play-wallet )
The offer go to a list with all offers of all players on the service.
If the other player wants to play, he must have the same amount of bitcoin in his play-wallet.
If 2 players went to the agreement about the match ( about the rules and play-wallet amount ), then it starts.
Now, during the game both players can make an higher bet after every move.
If someone makes an higher bet, the other one must make the same bet or higher to be able to continue the game.
( if the game has a timer, it must stop if one of the 2 players makes a new bet )
Everyone can leave the game when ever they want, but they will lose all their past bets.
The service must have all kinds of statistics about all players.
It can be possible also to open ( or not ) the match to spectators, so that they can also bet between each other.
If I'm understanding this experiment correctly, they want people to pay to play chess on their site?
Why would I choose to do that, when I can play for free at any number of well-established sites that already have decent-sized playerbases?
Why would I choose to do that, when I can play for free at any number of well-established sites that already have decent-sized playerbases?
This^
What would be nice, is a site where two players could wager BTC on the game. THAT is useful.
Jump to: