Will Black win in Manifold Plays Chess, Pt. 2?
16%
chance

We're playing as black, against lichess's level 3 stockfish bot as white. Will we win?

Resolves YES if we get a checkmate / lichess resigns, or NO if we're mated by lichess, or PROB at 50% if it's a draw, or N/A if I'm unable to continue for some reason.

Link to the game: https://lichess.org/sLmZPb9nTcN

The current move is

Move History

  1. g3 d5

  2. Bg2 e5

  3. Nf3 Bd6

  4. c3 Nf6

  5. O-O d4

  6. Ng5 dxc3

  7. bxc3 h6

  8. Ne4 Nxe4

  9. Qb3 Nc5

  10. Qc2 e4

  11. Bxe4 ...

I'll post a separate market for each turn, that will close daily at midnight PST. Anyone who holds YES on this market can vote for a move in the comments.

Last time manifold played chess (https://manifold.markets/group/manifold-plays-chess), we lost -- someone bought a bunch of NO and then bid up bad moves. This is an experiment to see if that can be avoided with good market structure.

Sort by:
deagol avatar
Daniel Tello
is predicting YES at 10%

Could we also include the latest move list in the description? Thanks.

1. g3 d5

2. Bg2 e5

3. Nf3 Bd6

4. c3 Nf6

5. O-O d4

6. Ng5 …

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting YES at 8%

I previously discussed in the comments on Game 1 and on discord ideas for how to structure these markets to work better. I wrote up my ideas here:

ms_test avatar
Mikhail Samin
bought Ṁ8,211 of NO
citrinitas avatar
Anton
bought Ṁ10 of YES

glorious

citrinitas avatar
Anton
is predicting YES at 19%

By the way @jack if I suspect the strategy is "delay the game and earn M$100/day from the free-choice subsidy" I will find myself unable to continue.

Not that I think that's likely, just keeping my bases covered.

jack avatar
Jack
bought Ṁ0 of YES

@citrinitas Haha fair enough. That's not my plan, I want to keep things interesting :)

Also note that @ms did do it first - I was expecting it to happen and wanted to see how long it would take someone else to do it lol

jack avatar
Jack
bought Ṁ0 of YES

Also, not to worry, I don't currently intend to fully take over the game, that would be boring for me and everyone else.

I also have made this market: /jack/will-i-achieve-my-secret-goal-on-th

ms_test avatar
Mikhail Samin
is predicting NO at 11%

@jack what I did was executing moves recommended by stockfish without much risk. What you did was making a move that’s suboptimal, holding more No than Yes shares.

I’m not interested in making markets worse just because it’s allowed to manipulate them.

So please don’t make people note that I did the thing you did first.

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting YES at 10%

@ms_test Fair enough, all I meant was the strategy of using an alt to buy YES shares risk-free. As for the manipulation, according to the author the point of this market was to test whether it could be manipulated (as described in the last line of the market description).

citrinitas avatar
Anton
is predicting YES at 9%

I would have given the same warning to @ms_test if he'd started pursuing his own inscrutable goals, but as he says his votes were just stockfish.

Manipulation is entirely in accord with the letter and spirit of the rules. I'm treating this as a low-stakes futarchy lab, and the precise way the rules fail is noteworthy.

deagol avatar
Daniel Tello
is predicting NO at 31%

Shouldn’t this market be temporarily closed at midnight every day during resolution of the move markets? Then reopen unless move is “resign” or stockfish replies with checkmate or resign. I think this would prevent someone buying a ton of YES here and voting “resign” just before midnight, and immediately swinging to NO here the moment the move is known. I did just that last night (with my puny capital) to sneak in a few votes (except I voted for a decent move).

citrinitas avatar

@deagol The intended defense against that is I might take a bit before evaluating the votes. If you buy a bunch of YES and !VOTE Resign, there's a long and non-deterministic period where someone can notice that and tank your YES investment before you have a chance to sell.

So far I've been pretty quick to run the evaluation, but you should not assume that will definitely continue.

deagol avatar
Daniel Tello
bought Ṁ30 of NO

@citrinitas Thanks, makes sense. How fast can you close this once the evaluation (public fairly random comment) is known to end the game? Could a bot mitigate/exacerbate that info gap?

deagol avatar
Daniel Tello
bought Ṁ20 of NO

@deagol To clarify, the time gap I'm concerned about is not between midnight and evaluation, but between evaluation and resolution here.

citrinitas avatar

@deagol Hmm. What kind of manipulation do you think would be prevented by getting rid of that gap?
It does mean that someone can claim all the remaining NO once the conclusion is certain, but there are a lot of markets like that and it doesn't really seem to be an issue.

deagol avatar
Daniel Tello
bought Ṁ50 of NO

@citrinitas So, @jack now holds 130k YES hedged by their alt @jack2, about 90% of the votes at near zero risk (I think). And his current vote is a sucky move, so they could vote “resign” last minute, have a bot read the fairly random reply, then immediately unwind here if evaluation picks it. I think his position was like 2k NO before recent takeover here. But who knows he might as well change his vote to a decent move and let us keep playing.

citrinitas avatar
Anton
is predicting YES at 19%

@deagol Sure, but the only thing he'd win in that "unwind" is limit orders + the subsidy. Right now there's a grand total of about M$429 total that could be earned by moving the market to 0%, mostly from the AMM subsidy, so I don't think anyone in particular would be losing out there.

deagol avatar
Daniel Tello
is predicting NO at 19%

@citrinitas maybe @ms? Not sure how exposed they were.

citrinitas avatar
Anton
is predicting YES at 19%

@deagol In that case I think the loss comes from someone voting "Resign" in the first place, and not any actions taking place in or motivated by the gap between evaluation and resolution

deagol avatar
Daniel Tello
is predicting NO at 22%

@citrinitas ok I’ll trust you, but my hunch @jack + @Jack2 net out more than M$500 (probably from others)

Jack2 avatar
Jack2
is predicting NO at 7%

Yeah, there are a small amount of profits available for someone doing this but I don't think it's a big deal currently and doesn't seem worth the hassle of constantly having to adjust the close date. It could become a bigger deal if people put up big limit orders though.

ms avatar
Mikhail Samin
bought Ṁ9,000 of NO

The only way this works is if there are conditional markets for every move. This doesn't work, sorry

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting NO at 34%

@ms I was wondering how long it would take for someone to spot this trick. :)

ms_test avatar
Mikhail Samin
bought Ṁ3,715 of YES

@jack that doesn’t mean I’m going to loose in chess though

jack avatar
Jack
bought Ṁ300 of NO

Of course not, but someone else can easily do it too

citrinitas avatar
Anton
sold Ṁ30 of YES

@jack has managed to accumulate a position of 821 NO on @jfjurchen's meta market, and is currently holding 98 YES here. There are 496 YES shares voting in the current policy market, so that's a 16% chance @jack can snipe with "Resign", unless something else changes.

How will this play out? Let's see!

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting YES at 34%

@citrinitas Yep, originally I was hoping for a YES, but as I realized how easy it was for NO to win and started buying NO myself, I am now have a large incentive to force a blunder/resign. Hmm... I suppose I could accept bribes from the YES holders not to do that. :)

jfjurchen avatar
J. F. Jurchen
bought Ṁ100 of NO

Intended exploit here is:

1. I buy NO on this market down to 15%
2. I create the meta-market and take a YES position, which hedges things and also makes it profitable for traders to buy YES on the meta-market and NO here
3. Someone else buys YES on this market, hedges with even more NO on the meta-market (which is an arbitrage), and votes for blunders
4. Manifold loses chess
5. Hopefully I profit and so does someone else

I'm not certain it'll work, but this still has the "YES bettors need to win the vote every time, NO only needs to win once" property, so I'm hopeful.

jack avatar
Jack
bought Ṁ10 of YES

@jfjurchen The two markets will be arbitraged, and if they are arbitraged well enough then you won't be able to build up a NO stake there and a YES stake here.

In step 3, that only works if this market is lower than the other market. I expect it to go the other way - this market is like voting shares, and the other market is non-voting shares, and voting shares should trade at a premium.

jack avatar
Jack
bought Ṁ15 of YES

Oh nvm, you are saying that you are deliberately moving the prices so that it's profitable for someone else to arb them, and then to exploit the markets. I think the problem with that is by definition if you arb the markets, you have no incentive either way.

jfjurchen avatar
J. F. Jurchen
bought Ṁ7 of NO

Yeah, that's definitely a possibility. But I'd want to take a net NO position in any case (because I'm optimistic that some exploit will work) and hedging on a second market that I get new trader bonuses on seems high-upside.

ZZZZZZ avatar

Why only level 3?

citrinitas avatar
Anton
is predicting YES at 50%

I expect the dominant factor will be how many blunders we're able to survive, not how well we play on average. I'm guessing that level 3 will be very beatable if the market remains well-aligned, but will be able to beat us if someone figures out a way to force bad moves.

AndrewHyer avatar
Andrew Hyer
bought Ṁ10 of NO

@citrinitas If 'RESIGN' is a valid move, surely an adversary only needs to be able to force one move regardless of what level the bot is?

citrinitas avatar
Anton
is predicting YES at 34%

@AndrewHyer Somehow "RESIGN" wasn't actually the fatal blunder last time. But yeah, sorry, I should have kept that clear from the start. Same rules as the original manifold chess

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting YES at 7%