Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
What is 5D chess? (chessbase.com)
225 points by hawkoy 11 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 105 comments



I bought this game a few weeks ago with a friend and we jumped in without any prior knowledge about the game or how it worked. After about 3 hours we were finally starting to understand the basic principles and I have to say wow, it's an absolute blast to play. Many hours in now we've finally begun developing our own strategies and it's absolutely insane. I have to say that 5D Chess is one of the most creative and innovative games that I've played in recent memory and I highly recommend it.


What is your opinion on how into the chess one needs to be to get a similar kind of experience out of the 5D chess? Asking as a casual hobby player.


I'd say you need to be comfortable with how the rules of chess work, but you don't need to be a chess player. The time travel rules even out the playing field for amateurs who play against actual chess players.


'From my experience playing a few games on it against decently strong opponents has been that at high levels it becomes "Chess, but it's much much easier to checkmate, and 2~3 times a game some time travel shenanigans happen."

The main reason for that is time traveling and dimension hoping come at a tempo disadvantage. When you create a new timeline, you make 1 move, but give your opponent 2 moves. You used your turn in the present, and created a new board where it's their turn in the past.

Any time travel or dimension hops need to be worth twice as much, minimum, as a normal move to even consider making them.

It does have more depth than normal chess, but it's not infinity deep. I still love it. My biggest concern with high level chess matches is that many, many games end in draws. It feels like it's impossible to a draw a gam e in 5D chess' [0]

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/hxqo6d/how_to_play_5...



I find that once I start time traveling (say 12 moves in) you should be aiming to win or lose before you get back there.

I.e. you only have the tempo disadvantage once the present has caught up to where you traveled from


> You used your turn in the present, and created a new board where it's their turn in the past.

Doesn't it depend on the piece you use? Knights and Bishops seems to be able to move on the board and move back in time at the same time.


Pieces have the same movement rules as normal chess. A knight for instance moves 3 spaces along one axis, and 1 space along another axis. If you time travel you're essentially sacrificing one of those spatial moves for a temporal move. For example 2 spaces back in time and 1 forward. So while it's not entirely giving up a move it's fairly close, especially for pieces that only move along a single axis at a time.


Without having played it, that seems like a reasonable balance.


I always thought a cool chess variant would be quantum chess where you can move a piece to more than one square and assign a probability to each position. Your opponent could do the same. But I never worked out how it could work from there.


A players mental representation of the game is already that (and you use this mental representation to predict future outcomes).

If you add probabilistic moves, the optimal way to play would be to give each alternative move the same weight (ie probability) that you think it will win you the game. You would pull this probability out of your mental representation.

Something like, "I think this is the best move, but this one is really good too so I will do it as well".

So I guess it could be fun to be able to try out all the moves you think are good in this way. But then an easier way to achieve this is to just play the game normally and go back to an interesting previous position once you have won.

But maybe a set of rules that will allow you to still win the game 'in retrospect' after all the 'best' moves were played by going through all the alternative superpositions as well.

So basically just play normally, but when you doubt what move is best, you make a superposition (and assign probabilities), which means you will be going back to this position later.

The winner would be the one who won most often, with each win weighed by the probability of that outcome (calculated based on the assigned probabilities along the game).

Sounds like fun.


Yes exactly what I was thinking, it is as if you mentally picture and weight each move, but what if you could actually represent that somehow and play out all the variations of a game like a multiverse. Sometimes when I play against a computer I will try different things by trying something then going back using undo, but then I wonder, wait maybe the other fork would have worked out, etc. This way you could have many versions going at once. I have look at source of various open chess engines and they do something similar, the idea is what if there were a way, maybe with shading of the pieces or some other way of representing the super positions of each possibility. The UI would be interesting challenge.


for the UI, how about duplicating the board? each game starts with one board. at each split point the active board is duplicated and you can play each. at the end you could draw a tree to show all the decision points and the end positions.

for extra fun if one board gets to a position that another board already had, the tree could be merged again.


Implementation idea:

The game starts with each player having 50 points "in the bank". In addition to moving normally, players may opt to move and split the timeline. If they split, they choose how many points to dedicate to the new timeline, which are put in its bank, distributed evenly between both players. Points must be whole numbers and each timeline must have at least 2 (max 50 timelines). Play continues normally on the original timeline, and they may opt to split again, if they have the points.

When a given timeline is played to checkmate, the winner secures all of their own and their opponent's points from that timeline. In the case of a tie, points are split evenly. First person to secure over 50 points wins.

The game keeps track of the history in each timeline. If one timeline's board enters a state that already occurred in a different board's history, both players are asked whether they'd like to merge timelines, in which case the banks from each timeline are combined and play continues on the board that is farther in the future.

The UI allows players to switch which timeline they are looking at freely So, both players can be playing at once, in different timelines. Initial implementation can show a single board at a time, a number showing which timeline you're viewing, how many points each player has banked in that timeline, and arrows for moving between timelines. Should be pretty easy to add, actually.

Competitive variant is timed. There is a single clock for each player, which counts down by the sum of all timelines in which it is their turn, scaled down by the % of total remaining points in that timeline.

That is, say we're playing 10+10 and there are currently two timelines, one with 20 points and one with 80. It's my turn in the 80 point timeline and yours in the 20 point timeline. While we wait here, my clock ticks down by .8 seconds per second, and yours by .2. Then I play. I gain +8 seconds, and my timer stops while yours starts ticking at full speed.

---

You'll note this isn't quite the original idea; a faithful implementation of that would have a shared pot of points that each player can split arbitrarily (including fractions of a point). But I didn't want to allow infinite splitting because that would make the game unplayably long (or, in timed variants, might lead to optimal strategies of overwhelming your opponent with many splits). And if infinite splitting is not allowed, then I don't want to allow one player to do all the splitting, that's no fun for the opponent.

The one thing I don't like is that this allows the stronger player to reliably win by never splitting and just winning the original board, since it will always have >50 points. This is probably fixable, not going to spend more time thinking about it right now though; this post has taken long enough :)


or you could use transfer learning to train a chess playing model to represent players play style and ability, and let AI play out the various branches to completion in the background.


Have you heard about refusal chess? Each player proposes two moves and the opponent gets to pick the move that suits them best.


Your description reminds me of billiards.

You have to think several turns ahead, in a chess sort of way. But your "best" move may be a low probability move, so you have to weigh that. Same for thinking about what your opponent may do in return.


There's a quantum tic-tac-toe variant which makes some practical compromises to make the game playable and scoreable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tic-tac-toe


Do players get to share an entangled particle beforehand? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22488927


There's a quantum chess game on Steam, titled Quantum Chess.


Quantum Chess is different, it allows players to move a piece twice in the same turn (in sequence) at the cost of a 50% chance of not moving at all. This is different from issuing multiple different moves in one turn.


HA ! Of course there is, that always happens to me, I think I am the first to think of something but then of course, a bunch of other people beat me to it :)


Maybe you could have the "wave function collapse" when a piece could take another or be on the same square. Would each piece only be able to be moved once before the collapse? Also, I wouldn't have people assign probabilities, but have them pick two moves with a fifty fifty chance of that move occurring. That way they can't just always assign the optimum move the 100% probability.


Wouldn't the optimal strategy be to just pick the best move in your opinion and assign 100% probability to it? That way it would just turn back into regular chess.


Hmm you are right. This brings to questiom why in real life we don't tend to go all in on the best bet.


There's no uncertainty in chess. It's a game of perfect information and you can understand the rules 100%


There absolutely is uncertainty in chess. Or do you know with certainty that you will win before the game starts?


There is uncertainty about which moves are best, but no uncertainty about what the state of the board is or what will happen when any move is played.

There exists some optimal play for both white and black, we don't know what it is yet, but someday we might and then chess would be truly solved like tic tac toe.


Exactly, we don't know the best play. So chess is uncertain. Whether there is a theoretical best move or not does not make playing chess any more certain if the move is unknown.


I think this is a really cool idea. Someone seems to have tried something similar here: https://store.steampowered.com/app/453870/Quantum_Chess/


That’s wrong you would have to add a fog of war where when the pieces interact you reveal the state of the piece. You wouldn’t know where your pieces are until you move them so all your pieces would Have be in a random order.


You throw stones into a pond, until the intersecting ripple nodes and anti-nodes create a pattern that represents a chessboard with your opponents kind in check.


Hmm... chess with the feel of poker; that could be fun.


ALICE CHESS, through the looking glass we go


Interesting. When I read "5d chess" I thought it would be a game where each dimension is represented by a different chessboard giving you a different view of the game. So for example, in the first dimension, the white king is in 1a and a black rook is in 2b, whereas in the second dimension the white king is still in 1a but the rook is in 1b, thus threatening the king. So everytime you make a move in one board, the piece you moved moves on all boards, but in a different, but relative, position. So the point of the game would be to make a move in one board that crated an advantage on another board- if a piece is captured in any board, it's captured on all boards and if a mate is threatened in any board it's threatened on all boards (and yeah, that's totally cribbed off the kernel trick in SVMs: map a lower-dimensional space onto a higher dimensional space to find a separating hyperplane that doesn't exist in the lower dimensional space). I guess that would get very hard to play very quickly though, certainly for a full game on an 8 × 8 board, but it could perhaps be played in end games like KRK or simplified chesses like hexapawn etc.

Btw, for anyone who likes time travel paradoxes, do watch Dark. It's up there with Primer, but does your head in more because of how many characters there are.


The video at the end reminded me of "Imagining the 10th dimension" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts

So is this basically visualizing the tree of possibilities from any board configuration, overlaid on itself at nodes where different sequences of moves can result in the same board configuration, allowing you to "jump" to a different "timeline" through the 5th dimension?


Oh my gosh, I hate that "10th dimension" video so freaking much. It has done nothing but spread confusion and false understanding across the internet.

If it were just presented as a fun exploration of what 10 dimensions could be, for fictional purposes, it would be... OKish, I guess. But choosing "10" specifically makes people erroneously think that this is what string theory is about, which is completely wrong.

Additionally, it falls into the trap of assuming that curvature requires a higher dimension to curve in, and that nontrivial connectivity inherently requires such curvature, both of which are false and hard enough to explain to people who have not been explicitly taught wrongly already.

And on top of all of that, it perpetuates the faulty idea that "the" 5th dimension, or "the" 10th dimension are sensible concepts, by presenting its particular choice of dimensions to discuss and its particular choice of ordering of those dimensions as fact.


From all the descriptions, this is actually 4D, no?

Normal chess is 2 dimensions, plus you have time dimension (3D), plus you have parallel timelines - that always go just one dimension

So it's 4D and not 5D?

edit: yeah it's actually "just" 4D, from the explainer here

https://imgur.com/a/XyRJmuh


It depends in real life you always have a 3D chess board (+ time dimension) and in some chess UIs you have the option to get a 3D board rendered, like in chessbase https://de.chessbase.com/Portals/All/2017/_eng/products/frit...


But you actually only play the game in two dimensions, because the pieces cannot move up or down. Normal chess is a game happening on a 2D plane whether or not the representation of the board and pieces is 2D or 3D.


No, because that again depends on the representation. You can store the information of moves and chess position in 1D. As for example, two players can play a game of chess just by exchanging moves via morse code.


They say the a 3rd dimension is unused so yeah I don’t understand why they didn’t just call it 4D chess.


Great, now I can suck at chess in 3 more dimensions.


Just wait till somebody invents 5d Go


How do you know if you have won? Or is it about avoiding checkmate in all possible timelines for all possible time travelling moves?


When there are multiple parallel time-lines, you have to input a move for each one before you can advance to the next turn. But to win, you have to mate just one of the opponent's kings. One player can have multiple kings on one board, because they can move through time and between time-lines.

I have no idea what high-level play will end up looking like, but the streamer from whom I learned the above [0] said that the most common way to win is to mate a king on a board in the past. Those already have their options of escaping an attack restricted by ordinary chess rules; it gets worse when you can make additional threats from the future.

[0] https://youtu.be/LOotGsWbaeA


I'd think the same way you know you won regular chess. You capture the opponent's king. Checkmate is just an acknowledgement that the current player has no way of avoiding their opponent from taking their king on the next move.


No, checkmate is the end state of the game, and the king cannot be captured. Any action by a player that would allow their king to be captured is an illegal move. When one player has no more legal moves, the game is over.


So checkmate in any one timeline counts? You couldn’t do all timelines.


> So checkmate in any one timeline counts?

Yes. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24065059 )

> You couldn’t do all timelines.

How do you reckon that? I mean, it makes sense on an intuitive level; however, since now we're not talking about Conor Petersen's 5D chess, but the vast space of possible multiverse time travel chess variants, it's not obvious how one could prove this to be impossible in a somewhat rigorous way. For example, what if time-lines end when a king is mated (or wioll fore-when haven been mote [0]), but you only lose when you can't make a valid move in any time-line?

[0] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~param/quotes/guide.html


I suppose you would have to avoid the king escaping to another timeline?


You do , which is why it ends up being easier to attack kings in the past. Because you can't change the past, only create new timelines, attacking a king from any previous board state means that the attacking piece must be captured.


does this means that attacking the starting king position will always put the king in check of the very first board? but, he can't really escape that


Yes, but it's not that easy. Pieces still make threats according to their movement rules, whether through time or space.

For example, if your king moves from its square and an enemy rook attacks its starting position (rooks can move any number of squares in any one direction), then it's mate unless you can take the rook. However, if in the intervening time, another piece lands on the same spot, then it will block subsequent rook checks through time on that square.


You only know when you've won or lost when the wavefront collapses to a 3d point you can experience in a particular time.


It looks amazing, and I really want to play it, but however I count I only end up with 4 dimensions. A chess board is 2D, time back-and-forth is 3D, and going up/down across universes is 4D. What's the 5th? Are they counting real-life-time as the 5th? In which case normal chess is 3D, which seems like an abuse of terms.


You are correct that the game is 4D. Every piece's coordinates are made up of four numbers - x, y, turn number, and timeline number. Depending on the piece, it can manipulate one or more of these numbers to go up or down. [1]

However, I would say that real chess is sort of "2.5" D by this definition rather than full 3D, since the turn number coordinate of every piece can only go up, not down.

[1]: The game's formalism is slightly complicated by the fact that a piece could make a move of (x, y, t, L) -> (x, y, t - 1, L) which would count as moving one square in one dimension, but then the game's "system" automatically transforms that move into a (x, y, t - 1, L +/- N) move. (The choice of +/- depends on which player made the move. The value of N depends on how many other timelines there are at that t.) This happens because of the rule that the past cannot be changed, so altering the past requires branching the timeline.

Similar things also happen with a move of (x, y, t, L) -> (x, y, t, L2), because within a single turn there is a concept of whether the board has already had a move played on it or not. So if the board at L2 has already had a move played on it, this new move is instead transformed into (x, y, t, L3). So it counts as a move of (L2 - T) squares for the purpose of validity, but is actually a move of (L3 - T) squares.


> I only end up with 4 dimensions

I think you're right. Even if we classify classical Chess as 3D (2D board + a time axis for game states), time travel re-uses that same time dimension.

If you wanted to shift the complexity into ludicrous speed (this is inspired by archgoon's comment [0]), you could introduce another dimension by putting a classical chess board inside each square of the 4D board. The 4D move only succeeds if you win the game on the mini-board. Just, please, don't bring recursion into this, unless you're captain Kirk and absolutely need to nerd-snipe a rogue AI. (“They've gone to plaid!”)

There's another possibility I've hinted at by calling standard Chess ‘classical’. On second thought, let’s not go to Quantum Chess. 'Tis a silly place. (I tried to imagine what a Schrödinger's king would look like. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Queens checked en passant from the future. I watched knigths glitter in the parallel time-line near the Hadamard Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to resign.)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24064974


It's only 4D. I believe they called it 5D chess because they didn't want people to interpret this as 3D chess + time. If I recall correctly, the tutorial mentions at some point that the 5th dimension is "unused".


The 5th dimension is just so tightly curled up that, after discretization, just looks like it's not present.


You. Nailed. It.


I think of the five dimensions as:

1. Horizontal within a board

2. Vertical within a board

3. Backwards and forwards along a timeline

4. Up and down across timelines

5. The timeline of how the game actually evolves, building out the tree. This is a bit of a stretch, since you can't move pieces through it in the same way as the other four.


It would have been nice if 4D only ever meant four spatial dimensions, and then we'd have (3+1)D for three spatial dimensions and a time dimension. (And (2+2)D for two spatial and two time dimensions :-))


2+2=4D could be for position and momentum in two dimensions.


I count it thusly: Ordinary chess is 2D. Adding in the ability to bifurcate the timeline and play distinct possibilities in parallel is 3D since it is a distinct degree of freedom. Adding in the ability to go back and forth along a timeline is 4D. Adding in the ability to also jump back and forth to ANY timeline (sideways rather than strictly back and forth) requires a fifth degree of freedom. So it's 5D as far as I'm concerned.


Hmm, I think I see what you're saying, but in my opinion the way that one bifurcates the timeline is by traveling back and forth in time, which is already counted, and moving back and forth among bifurcated dimensions is already counted as well, so there's not extra dimension there.

For instance, if you have a stick you can push back and forth in a groove and count that as one dimension, if you push hard enough against an obstacle the stick might break and rotate out into the plane, but that's still only two degrees of freedom.


If the chess board is 2d, how does the Knight move, doesn't it need the third dimension to go "over" other pieces? I assume, graphics notwithstanding, the board is logically represented in 3 dimensions.


I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but anyways: obviously an actual chessboard is indeed 3d - as are all physical objects in our world. Yet a chessboard is effectively a 2d space: any piece position is completely defined by a row and a column.


It's true that at the beginning and end of each move, every piece has a specific coordinate in a 2D space, but it is still nice to imagine that knights' moves (and castling) involve travelling through a third spatial dimension. And yes, the pieces themselves are conventionally thought of as volumes in 3D space rather than areas of a 2D plane.


There’s nothing wrong with defining the 2D world such that knights can pass through intermediate pieces or can simply teleport to a new location.


Yes, but to maintain the conceit of chess being like a battlefield, it is nicer to think of knight pieces as being jumping cavalry (however unrealistic that is) rather than ghosts or owning a portal gun.

I suppose the actually intended analogy is that by riding a horse, the character is more evasive and can slip past another unit without being blocked. Also, I suppose that rooks must have wheels on, and a door that a king can only walk through in rare circumstances.


There's a similar discussion upthread where someone points out this is a matter of representation -- you could "unwind" the chess board into 1d just as easily.


Knights tunnel.


It's an incorporeal ghost knight.


I interpreted the description as normal chess board = 2 dimensions. time = third dimension. moving on the x axis in the multiverse as 4th dimension and moving on the y axis in the multiverse as 5th dimension. So yes, in this wacky world a standard game of chess in progress is 3D.


Moving along the x axis is the same as time though.


You're right, I was confused. This is like deciphering Dark on netflix.


We skipped right over the opportunity for non-integer fractal dimensional chess! In all seriousness, this looks super interesting. I’d love to see some live gameplay of it.


Hmm, fractal dimensional chess could perhaps be implemented as having subboards within each tile of a standard chessboard. Completely spitballing over lunch, I propose the following rule set:

* Every square of a chessboard is itself a chessboard. This applies recursively. The top-level chessboard is named "Prime". All other chessboards are named according to the subdivision of Prime where they are located. So, the board located one level deep at F3 is called "Prime-F3". The board located two levels deep at A7 of Prime-F3 is called Prime-F3-A7.

* All infinite chessboards start in the standard board starting position.

* Black and white alternate making moves. Each move consists of moving a single piece within a single chessboard, following standard chess rules.

* The game is won when a player does not have a King located in Prime.

So far, this only introduces additional moves that can be made, which have no impact on the Prime board. Apart from being harder to force a draw, the subboards have no impact. Next up, adding rules to allow boards to influence the boards above/below them.

* If player X has a piece on board Z in location Y, then all pieces belonging to player X in board Z-Y may, in addition to their normal move, also move like the piece in board Z. For example, at the start of the game, white has a queen on Prime at location D1. Therefore, in board Prime-D1 may move like a queen, in addition to their normal movement.

* If player X does not have a King in board Z-Y, then their opponent may, as their move, move any piece from board Z-Y to board Z in location Y. For example, if Black has captured White's King on board Prime-D8, then Black may move any piece on Prime-D8 to the Prime board at location D8.

Now, there is an incentive to playing on the lower level boards. Play here goes much faster, by virtue of having more moves available. By investing time into the subboards, you can gain additional pieces on the main board. If a subboard is being used to funnel more pieces in, then it may be worth investing in a subsubboard, in order to pull a king in from the subsubboard to the subboard.


Arguably, that's what this is. The bifurcating timelines are better thought of as n-dimensional space. Describing the location of a piece requires a description of the bifurcations, which won't be a fixed number of numbers but will go up as the game progresses. Integer dimensions don't really cover this.


Yeah, great point, the dimensionality of the game increases as it progresses. I can't tell from the article, is there a bound on the number of parallel board timelines that can run simultaneously? Theoretically, without a bound, the dimensionality could increase indefinitely (there could be non-terminating paths that loop between the same game states enabling an arbitrary number of bifurcations).


Would be interesting to see something like this with poker. There are some interesting, high variance games becoming increasingly popular and this would certainly be a cool wrinkle: "6 card high low Omaha with time travel".


3d chess is another popular variant: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_chess

Lot of games you could spin up in this manner. I wonder if we are going to do that for all the board games with tried and old strategies. HN has any suggestions on what those board games should be?

Game on steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1349230/5D_Chess_With_Mul...

There is a discord linked in the game help menu where people are discussing lot of things including how to create a bot.

For the lazy: https://discord.gg/8kQhp6

Edit: removed mobile url.


> 3d chess is another popular variant: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_chess

I was crazy enough as a high-schooler to actually build (with the help of my father) a 3D chess "board". It was mostly plywood, with eight 8x8 boards stacked vertically. I had previously gotten a "3D" chess board which was just three 8x8 boards. They weren't making Star Trek tri-dimensional chess sets back then.

With the 8x8x8 3D board, movement rules for 2D chess have a "natural" expansion to 3D, with only a few corner cases. White player's non-pawn pieces start out on the bottom board, with the pawns on the next board up.

In practice, it was hard to visualize how the game was going in general. We were constantly standing up and crouching to see. Only one of my friends wanted to play, and he only lasted about half a game. :-(

With the failure to interest my friends, I had intended to write my own chess program to play it. I had started out with the 2D version, and was then intending to expand it later. The original was written in BASIC... and that did not go too well.


I imagine it'd be quite hard to trap your opponent with an extra dimension to escape in. Perhaps the board should be smaller to compensate. Regular (2d) Connect 4 is played on a 6x7 board. But 3d Connect 4 is played on a 4x4x4 board.


Some people are currently playing it on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/5D%20Chess%20With%20Mul...



Happy to see this finally getting some traction on HN. I finally finished all of the puzzles a couple of days ago and I'm confident I'm going to file this one under the same file as Go: Fun to play, but even better to watch more skilled players analyze.


I desperately want to go hang out on a forum where people are building AI bots to play this game.


according to searchableguy, that’s happening right here: https://discord.gg/8kQhp6


I’d love to see a chess variant where you could move pieces upside down to the bottom side of the board and make moves and pop back up onto the surface at strategic points. Lurker chess.



This looks amazing! Although I wouldn't be surprised if this was a forced first-player win.


Perhaps at an expert level, but given theory debt of even normal chess I hardly see how this could be an issue at very expert level but that's not for some years (assuming it gets a community but it clearly has a good start). It actually looks really fun, hopefully there isn't a way to cheese-win as white, but barring that it looks really fun and creative.


When I was learning about puzzle game making, one of the rules was people don't like puzzles. They like puzzles but not the feeling like they're doing one.

This is kind of the opposite. So it really competes with Fall Guys then...


Outer Wilds does the whole "puzzle game without feeling like one" better than any other game I know.


God that game is SO GOOD. It gave me a lot of “I finished a puzzle” feeling without having to do any hard puzzles for a lot of it, until the point where I had to take a thing from the Hourglass Twins to another part of the system without fucking it up, with suddenly higher stakes. I stopped playing it for like a week when I knew that was what I had to do, because I had to be in the right mood...


I watched the video at the end three times and still couldn't figure it out.



Would love to see some GM stream this. Go Nakamura :)


Blackjack version, "Hit me.... ok stay"


90 comments and no Putin joke yet?


Now I can "checkmate, bitches!" in another timeline... This is tremendous


I think that's called "Nothing personnel, kid".

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/teleports-behind-you-nothing-...


Lichess[1] is a popular site to play chess online for free. They offer different chess variants to play against other people. Would be great if 5D chess was one of the variants to play online.

[1] https://lichess.org/




Applications are open for YC Winter 2022

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: