Fetish (self-bondage?) chess

glamour fetish chessChess was never meant to be a fetish sport, but now I’m not that sure.

Indeed, why not to make bondage chess, self-bondage chess (you can play with yourself or with a computer, right?), fetish dare chess, etc. For example,

  • pawn = additional rope or any restricting item (e.g. sticky tape)
  • rook = gag
  • bishop = plug
  • knight = chastity belt
  • queen = enema
  • every second rook, bishop or knight makes the bondage more severe (e.g. bigger plug or gag)
  • the faster you lose, the more time you will have to spend in bondage
  • you begin naked, every 5 min you put one item on (e.g. pantyhose, leotard, gloves, hood, stockings, heels)
    That would make self-bondage funny, because i doubt you can win if you play with a good computer program 😉

3 thoughts on “Fetish (self-bondage?) chess”

  1. Sometime in the 80s, IBM built a supercomputer that had a 100% success rate against a chess grandmaster (I forget the name; I think the supercomputer/program was called either Deep Thought or Deep Blue). These days, the top difficulty AI in a standard decent chess computer program is close enough to that thing that those of us who do not compete in world-class championships cannot tell the difference. Chess was one of the first classic games to fall under the category of unbeatable with sufficiently powerful AI.

    (I have a suspicion that if you were to pit 2 such AIs against one another, every game would be a stalemate, just like tic tac toe. It’s just that chess is so much more complex that the human mind can’t play an absolutely perfect game.)

  2. it was deep blue and was more or less a fake. Deep blue played against the world champion and won, if I’m not wrong, two or three matches out of five making it look incredibly strong at playing chess. great for IBM but it had a cheap trick that the world champion found after two or three games.

    you see… Deep blue only played good against him because it had all his games in the hard disk making it very easy to predict what the champion would do but that’s almost useless against any other top player since they have different styles of play.

    still Deep Blue played great against any chess player but it’s AI was just a bit better than the rest when going against anybody but the champion.

    by the way Chess still hasn’t been proven that white plays and wins when both players make a perfect game and some classic games have been proven. Nim for example has such a simple tactic to win that even an average high school student can play a perfect game. and while tic tac toe can’t be won even with perfect play the game has been “solved” ensuring that first player never loses with a perfect play. (some other games have been solved and proved that second player can’t lose with a perfect play)

    so no. Chess wasn’t (and isn’t) a game under the category of unbeatable with a sufficiently powerful AI. it still hasn’t been solved.

    by the way chess is not THAT complex. try playing go or shogi and you will understand what I mean.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *