Something like it is true in chess. Winning or losing is the only thing that matters, there’s no nuance, nothing to bargain over. Cohabitive chess would be more like: Players would try to agree to declare an outcome as early as possible to minimize loss of life. Defeat would cost something, but the death of one’s servants might cost even more.
In practice I guess that would just be chess with more encouragement to try predicting match outcomes in advance, which I certainly wouldn’t mind. I think players would still want to play until they’re fairly certain of the outcomes, but betting along the way would be fun too.
Notably, I don’t think Alphazero would be any worse at this cohabitive chess than Absolute Winner chess. It’s already constantly predicting match outcomes all the way through.
Something like it is true in chess. Winning or losing is the only thing that matters, there’s no nuance, nothing to bargain over. Cohabitive chess would be more like: Players would try to agree to declare an outcome as early as possible to minimize loss of life. Defeat would cost something, but the death of one’s servants might cost even more.
In practice I guess that would just be chess with more encouragement to try predicting match outcomes in advance, which I certainly wouldn’t mind. I think players would still want to play until they’re fairly certain of the outcomes, but betting along the way would be fun too.
Notably, I don’t think Alphazero would be any worse at this cohabitive chess than Absolute Winner chess. It’s already constantly predicting match outcomes all the way through.
I agree chess is a competitive zero-sum game, I was just responding to the more specific claim, and just saying it seemed overstated.