- shift from discrete to continuous time. Very slow with Sian and Kirsty, very quick with me and Jon - mainly because we observed I think! Had to quickly abandon that.
- Rummie - cards fucked up, with people having the wrong numbers. But it was all fine because of the conditions we were playing under, which gave really limited time for considering what was happening.
- Frustration caused by balloon popping - "that's part of the system" was my response, but it did show some sort of desire for it to act as an abstract system.
- Pulse chess - me playing on Kirsty's body statistics.
- Proneness to error created by limited time for consideration.
- What was the effect on Kirsty of having me running around.
27 Mar 2011
Brief notes on Errant Gaming 01 experiments
Ok... this will make no sense, context soon...
24 Mar 2011
Time for NWN
What am I trying to achieve with the Neverwinter Nights time mod?
I'm trying to make time governed by some other principle other than linear machine time. Perhaps one way of doing this is tying it to the life energy of the players, rather than their activity. It could work this out through the total energy of all players present.
I'm trying to make time governed by some other principle other than linear machine time. Perhaps one way of doing this is tying it to the life energy of the players, rather than their activity. It could work this out through the total energy of all players present.
Pre-emptive reflections on pulse chess and bare life
Tomorrow, with luck, I shall receive my pulse readers, and will be able to start working out how my heartbeat mediated chess will work.
Following the lectures on biopolitics and aesthetics I've attended, I've been thinking a lot about the concept of bare life and how it relates to this project. In a sense, my working model of bare life is actually rooted in Wittgenstein, it is the infant's cry that is replaced by the expression of pain. In another, it is of course from Benjamin, the person reduced to bare life by the violence of law. I've not mapped out how this relates to the politics of the project.
So, by replacing the turn based game time with time governed by physiology, am I bringing bare life into the game of chess? This is tricky. Lewis Mumford recounts how clock time replaces physiological desire, I eat because it is 6pm, not because I am hungry. Is the swing of the turn like that of the pendulum, and is the heartbeat an expression of physiological regulation? I don't think it's so simple, the heartbeat is completely mediated by the pulse readers, and it isn't really the base unit that we would use without the turn system - it does not occupy the place of the infant's cry. But it is bringing the body into a cerebral game - like 'politeness' in Benjamin's Ibizan Sequence, it is opening up the boundaries of the conflict in the game. But the end it is doing this for is so unlike Benjamin's 'politeness', it creates the issue of conflict to be opened up - or at least that's the intention.
Following the lectures on biopolitics and aesthetics I've attended, I've been thinking a lot about the concept of bare life and how it relates to this project. In a sense, my working model of bare life is actually rooted in Wittgenstein, it is the infant's cry that is replaced by the expression of pain. In another, it is of course from Benjamin, the person reduced to bare life by the violence of law. I've not mapped out how this relates to the politics of the project.
So, by replacing the turn based game time with time governed by physiology, am I bringing bare life into the game of chess? This is tricky. Lewis Mumford recounts how clock time replaces physiological desire, I eat because it is 6pm, not because I am hungry. Is the swing of the turn like that of the pendulum, and is the heartbeat an expression of physiological regulation? I don't think it's so simple, the heartbeat is completely mediated by the pulse readers, and it isn't really the base unit that we would use without the turn system - it does not occupy the place of the infant's cry. But it is bringing the body into a cerebral game - like 'politeness' in Benjamin's Ibizan Sequence, it is opening up the boundaries of the conflict in the game. But the end it is doing this for is so unlike Benjamin's 'politeness', it creates the issue of conflict to be opened up - or at least that's the intention.
Automata chess
Automata chess is an experimental chess variant, in which no piece is ever taken - it is however captured in a very different sense, it becomes a roving automata following a rule determined by the player who has taken it.
I've had one game of automata chess so far. The most striking feature of the game is the sheer mental exhaustion - not only is the game many times more complicated, but each time you take a piece you have to invent a rule. Trying to think of an operating rule at all, let alone one that works to your advantage, each time you take a piece is very draining.
The trial game did also produce the result I was after - a crucial moment where the game was underdetermined. My friend had me in check, but an automata piece was going to block it after my turn. Now, when you're in check, you have to get out of it at the end of your turn, right? Or is it sufficient that another piece will move to block it? We didn't have a chance of determining this - I tried a pseudo-rational explanation of why I was right, but the fact remained this is something that would have to be agreed beforehand and it wasn't. In the end, we had to resolve it at random (which is equivalent to not being able to resolve it at all, I guess)
I've had one game of automata chess so far. The most striking feature of the game is the sheer mental exhaustion - not only is the game many times more complicated, but each time you take a piece you have to invent a rule. Trying to think of an operating rule at all, let alone one that works to your advantage, each time you take a piece is very draining.
The trial game did also produce the result I was after - a crucial moment where the game was underdetermined. My friend had me in check, but an automata piece was going to block it after my turn. Now, when you're in check, you have to get out of it at the end of your turn, right? Or is it sufficient that another piece will move to block it? We didn't have a chance of determining this - I tried a pseudo-rational explanation of why I was right, but the fact remained this is something that would have to be agreed beforehand and it wasn't. In the end, we had to resolve it at random (which is equivalent to not being able to resolve it at all, I guess)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)