This resolution will be very vibes-based, but I will try to be as fair as possible.
NOTE: If the largest YES holder on a given move is a YES holder in this market, this market will ignore that move! I don't want to encourage bad moves to be made to manipulate this market.
For each @Robincvgr "Manifold Plays Chess" market resolution for the current game of chess, anyone may reply here and make the case for it being not just bad, but bafflingly bad. As in, whoever bet on this move either missed something obvious that would happen next turn, or was trolling. Also applies to "offer draw" if clearly winning, or resigning if there's still a real chance of victory.
If there's consensus in the comments that it should count (aside from people who I subjectively judge to be in bad faith), this market resolves YES. Otherwise, resolves NO after the game ends or the chess markets end (if they aren't continued by another person.)
Update 2025-03-16 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification Update:
Only moves that are obviously bad on the immediate next turn will be considered.
Mistakes that require multi-move deeper analysis will not count unless the blunder is apparent by the following move.
Using engine evaluations like Stockfish is deemed appropriate for a different market and not for this one.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ72 | |
| 2 | Ṁ38 | |
| 3 | Ṁ21 | |
| 4 | Ṁ8 | |
| 5 | Ṁ5 |
@MingCat No objection other than the fact that this market should've resolved YES far before that
@copiumarc Like what was the plan with Bc5 (this is fine) d3 Bb4? c3 Bf8? that's gotta be trolling right
@Quroe I think this would be a fine criteria for a different market, but here I'm particularly interested in moves that are obviously bad. Multi-move deep mistakes wouldn't count unless they'd be apparent by next turn
@CollinMatthews That's fair. That was intended to describe the sort of standards it'd take to consider a move bafflingly bad, not the underlying paychology