Welcome to Manifold Plays Chess! It is currently white's turn to play, and this is the current state of the board.
At an arbitrary time no earlier than 12 hours before listed close time, the answer at the highest percentage will resolve 100%, and the rest will resolve 0%. That move will then be played on the board. Please add answers to suggest moves. I will invalidate any answers that are not one of the following: a valid move, resign, offer to draw
The market will never resolve to Other. If it is in the lead, I will wait for another option to take the lead before resolving. If the market closes with Other in the lead, I will resolve to the second highest answer.
Then, a similar market for black's move will be created, then a market for white's response, and so on and so forth until the game concludes.
I may bet in the seconds immediately after market creation, but will not bet other than that.
Bet on the outcome here: https://manifold.markets/Robincvgr/who-will-win-manifold-plays-chess?play=true
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ238 | |
| 2 | Ṁ154 | |
| 3 | Ṁ140 | |
| 4 | Ṁ56 | |
| 5 | Ṁ43 |
The incentive structure is odd here. It does not seem like there is a clear drive to play the best move since a single trader can play on both black and white's side of the table.
Since it gets more expensive to push a particular move near the extremes of the meter (0% and 100%), it seems like the most profitable play is to trade to back the most 'average' move possible. That, or be the commenter with the most charisma to drive the masses to support their push, not necessarily be the smartest chess-playing commenter.
This doesn't seem like a battle of wits. This seems like a role playing contest of who can helm the roles of id, ego, and super-ego the best.
Is my analysis flawed? I want to be wrong -- please correct me.
@Quroe Indeed, there's not really an incentive to advocate for the best moves just within the scope of this market. Honestly, I feel like these markets are just here to service the one on who will win (see how things are playing out here and make an according bet there, or make a bet there and manipulate these markets in your favor)
For the sentence on invalidating answers, is that to be read as:
Will invalidate any answers that are not one of the following: a valid move, resign, offer to draw
Or:
Will invalidate any answers that are one of the following: an invalid move, OR an offer to resign or withdraw
It’s ambiguous whether the intent is to ignore illegal moves or to veto trolling attempts by resigning
@Quroe Unfortunately, due to the structure of the game, since draws don't come with a move in this format, the other player will only get the option of accepting or rejecting. If rejected, it will be the first player's turn to move again.
This leads to the obvious issue of one player stalling the game with frivolous draw offers. However, the FIDE rules, along with many other chess rulesets, prohibits annoying the opponent, including via unreasonable offers of a draw, and empowers the arbiter to enforce this via, among other remedies, declaring the game to be lost by the offending party.
Thus, I think it is reasonable for me to adapt such rules to this format. if the game becomes paralyzed by excessive frivolous draw offers, I may declare the game to be lost by the offending party. However, I intend to apply this conservatively, and will give a warning first.
Good question, thank you