Arimaa was an earlier attempt to do this. Developed in 2003, a computer beat humans in 2015. This site summarizes some of its anti-AI properties as
On average there are over 17,000 possible moves compared to about 30 for chess; this significantly limits how deep computers can think, but does not seem to affect humans.
Opening books are useless since the starting position is not fixed. There are over 64 million ways to start the game.
End game databases are not helpful since a game can end with all pieces still on the board.
Research papers on Arimaa suggest it is more of a strategic and positional game with less emphasis on tactics.
How about if you have to solve brain teasers by visual analogy. For example: a card shows a drawing of a bear and a 12-inch ruler; answer is “BAREFOOT.” A pair of dice showing the value of 2 (one and one); answer: “SNAKE EYES.” The word “READ” between two lines; answer: “READ BETWEEN THE LINES.” The word “agent” twice; answer: “DOUBLE AGENT.” A picture of an Apple and the number 3.14158. You get the point.
Riddle: What month of the year has 28 days? Answer: All of them
Riddle: What is full of holes but still holds water? Answer: A sponge
Riddle: What is always in front of you but can’t be seen? Answer: The future
Riddle. What can you break, even if you never pick it up or touch it? Answer: A promise
Riddle: A man who was outside in the rain without an umbrella or hat didn’t get a single hair on his head wet. Why? Answer: He was bald.
Riddle: I shave every day, but my beard stays the same. What am I? Answer: A barber
Riddle: You see a boat filled with people, yet there isn’t a single person on board. How is that possible? Answer: All the people on the boat are married.
Riddle: A man dies of old age on his 25 birthday. How is this possible? Answer: He was born on February 29.
Riddle: I have branches, but no fruit, trunk or leaves. What am I? Answer: A bank
Riddle: What can’t talk but will reply when spoken to? Answer: An echo
Riddle: The more of this there is, the less you see. What is it? Answer: Darkness
Tks Kaj. I can see that this designer tried to fuck AIs up by the brute force way, which is not efficient and, well, not elegant. The game also kind of suffers from the same problem as Esperanto, that is it’s way too “eurocentric”.
Those summaries from the site sound dubious.
On average there are over 17,000 possible moves compared to about 30 for chess; this significantly limits how deep computers can think, but does not seem to affect humans.
Of course that affects humans. This is like sacrificing most of your 2nd goal to get a tiny little bit ahead on your 1st goal.
End game databases are not helpful since a game can end with all pieces still on the board.
Absurd. Many strategy/abstract games, even chess, can end with all pieces alive.
Research papers on Arimaa suggest it is more of a strategic and positional game with less emphasis on tactics.
Reviews I read suggest otherwise. Moreover, the game claims that it’s among the highest rated on BGG. Following the link reveals that it’s down in the 40ish or 50ish ranks, below Go, Xiangqi, Shogi, and even Chess, which it aspires to improve from.
Besides, there’s a pattern I noticed from reading the reviews. Those high scores for Animaa usually come from earlier years, 2000s. Conversely, the recent ones are dominated by negative views. In them we can see those repeated complaints about slow pace, boring feel and stripping off of chess’ aesthetics...
So, I’d argue that Animaa isn’t really an attempt to do what I asked in the question. It went solely for the 1st goal while completely ignoring the 2nd goal, which weigh about 40-45% of importance IMO. After all, the human element is just something we’re having an edge over AIs. And what is a game if it doesn’t have people playing??
Arimaa was an earlier attempt to do this. Developed in 2003, a computer beat humans in 2015. This site summarizes some of its anti-AI properties as
How about if you have to solve brain teasers by visual analogy. For example: a card shows a drawing of a bear and a 12-inch ruler; answer is “BAREFOOT.” A pair of dice showing the value of 2 (one and one); answer: “SNAKE EYES.” The word “READ” between two lines; answer: “READ BETWEEN THE LINES.” The word “agent” twice; answer: “DOUBLE AGENT.” A picture of an Apple and the number 3.14158. You get the point.
Riddles
Riddle: What month of the year has 28 days?
Answer: All of them
Riddle: What is full of holes but still holds water?
Answer: A sponge
Riddle: What is always in front of you but can’t be seen?
Answer: The future
Riddle. What can you break, even if you never pick it up or touch it?
Answer: A promise
Riddle: A man who was outside in the rain without an umbrella or hat didn’t get a single hair on his head wet. Why?
Answer: He was bald.
Riddle: I shave every day, but my beard stays the same. What am I?
Answer: A barber
Riddle: You see a boat filled with people, yet there isn’t a single person on board. How is that possible?
Answer: All the people on the boat are married.
Riddle: A man dies of old age on his 25 birthday. How is this possible?
Answer: He was born on February 29.
Riddle: I have branches, but no fruit, trunk or leaves. What am I?
Answer: A bank
Riddle: What can’t talk but will reply when spoken to?
Answer: An echo
Riddle: The more of this there is, the less you see. What is it?
Answer: Darkness
Tks Kaj. I can see that this designer tried to fuck AIs up by the brute force way, which is not efficient and, well, not elegant. The game also kind of suffers from the same problem as Esperanto, that is it’s way too “eurocentric”.
Those summaries from the site sound dubious.
Of course that affects humans. This is like sacrificing most of your 2nd goal to get a tiny little bit ahead on your 1st goal.
Absurd. Many strategy/abstract games, even chess, can end with all pieces alive.
Reviews I read suggest otherwise. Moreover, the game claims that it’s among the highest rated on BGG. Following the link reveals that it’s down in the 40ish or 50ish ranks, below Go, Xiangqi, Shogi, and even Chess, which it aspires to improve from.
Besides, there’s a pattern I noticed from reading the reviews. Those high scores for Animaa usually come from earlier years, 2000s. Conversely, the recent ones are dominated by negative views. In them we can see those repeated complaints about slow pace, boring feel and stripping off of chess’ aesthetics...
So, I’d argue that Animaa isn’t really an attempt to do what I asked in the question. It went solely for the 1st goal while completely ignoring the 2nd goal, which weigh about 40-45% of importance IMO. After all, the human element is just something we’re having an edge over AIs. And what is a game if it doesn’t have people playing??