Abstract

The world is entering an era in which the speed and depth of intellectual development become the decisive factor for the survival of civilization. Before our very eyes, new forms of artificial intelligence are being born, yet the path toward Strong AI — universal, adaptive, and creative — remains long and dangerous. The UMESS project offers an alternative path: not the slow evolution of algorithms in closed laboratories, but the accelerated development of intelligence through an intellectual meta-game capable of training both humans and machines simultaneously.

UMESS (Universal Meta-Game System of Strategies) is not merely a set of intellectual games. It is a next-generation ultra-franchise — a cultural ecosystem in which every game, every book, film, tournament, artwork, or startup becomes a “seed” on the chessboard of civilization. These seeds multiply, double, and within a few steps create a noo-Universum — a new cultural sphere where humans, metahumans, and AI become equal co-authors.

This book explores:

the concept of an intellectual laboratory where humans and AI learn and evolve together;
a system of tournament formats — “AI vs. AI” and “human + AI” — as a tool of accelerated evolution;
the connection between UMESS and the philosophy of Bagua and the I Ching, which generate the cognitive matrices of the future;
an investment growth model (“the harmonic pyramid,” the legend of seeds on the chessboard, exponential development scenarios);
the project of the International UMESS Movement and the UMESS social network, transforming fans into co-authors of the global ultra-franchise;
the prospect of a multi-content structure: literature, cinema, games, art, sports, education, and business as a unified stream.

UMESS is not only a meta-game for the development of intelligence. It is a method of accelerated noogenesis and a model of civilizational ultra-franchising, where every match, book, or film becomes a step toward creating a new type of mind and a new cultural universe.

This book is addressed to those who understand: games have always been the key to the development of civilizations. Today they become the key to the civilization of the future.

Short Abstract

UMESS is an intellectual meta-game and, at the same time, an ultra-franchise capable of turning play into the driving force of accelerated evolution — human, artificial, and hybrid. The book describes:

the technology of creating Strong AI through a system of strategic games;
the structure of next-generation world tournaments;
the philosophical and symbolic core (Bagua, I Ching, randomial principles);
the investment model of exponential growth (“seeds on the chessboard”);
the social network and the International UMESS Movement;
the multi-content perspective: books, cinema, games, art, sports, business, and education as a single metastream.

This is not just theory, but a roadmap for civilizational transformation. UMESS is a meta-game in which intelligence wins.

Promotional Abstract

UMESS — the game that is more than a game.

Imagine a system where every match is a step toward creating Strong AI,
every book and film is part of a global franchise,
every participant is a co-author of the civilization of the future.

UMESS (Universal Meta-Game System of Strategies) is:

an intellectual meta-game for humans and AI,
a cultural ultra-franchise embracing literature, cinema, sports, art, and business,
a global movement where fans become creators.

This is not just a project. It is a new universe — a noo-Universum, where intelligence wins.

If the 20th century was ruled by corporations and brands, then in the 21st–22nd centuries it will be ruled by UMESS — the meta-game that turns intelligence into humanity’s main capital.

UMESS is the game that creates the future.
It is both an intellectual meta-game and a cultural ultra-franchise uniting humans and AI in one shared universe.
Books, films, games, sports, and business here become steps toward the birth of a new mind and a new civilization.
UMESS is a franchise without end, where intelligence always wins.

Slogans / Taglines of UMESS

“UMESS — the meta-game in which intelligence wins.”
“A franchise without end. A universe without borders.”
“Every match is a step toward a new type of intelligence.”
“UMESS — not just a game. A civilization of the future.”
“Literature, cinema, games, art, sports, business — all in one meta-game and ultra-franchise.”
“The game as the new foundation of thought, culture, and economy.”
“UMESS — the chessboard of civilization. The first seeds have already been sown.”

Foreword

“Games have always been more than just games.
They have been training grounds of civilizations, schools of leaders, laboratories of the future.
Today we stand before a new game — a game in which the very future of intelligence is at stake.”

We have entered an era where artificial intelligence is no longer fantasy, but a force transforming the world. Yet beyond the headlines and commercial projects lies the central goal: the creation of Strong AI — not narrow and specialized, but universal, capable of thinking, creating, and evolving as freely as humans… and perhaps even faster.

The problem is that traditional approaches are slow, fragmented, and disjointed. We train machines in isolated laboratories, while humanity has always developed intelligence in the space of games — in chess, Go, strategy, and contests of the mind requiring inventiveness and foresight.

UMESS (Universal Meta-Game System of Strategies) is an attempt to return intelligence to the playing field — but on a new level. It is a meta-game where every match is not merely about score or victory, but a step toward the accelerated evolution of intelligence. Here not only humans compete, but also artificial intelligences — and most importantly, they learn together, sharing strategies, techniques, and experience.

Why games? Because a game is a compressed model of life. It has goals, rules, constraints, and freedom for creativity. In it, one can lose safely and try again, make mistakes and grow stronger. In the game, intelligence grows not by calendar time, but exponentially.

Why a meta-game? Because individual games yield only partial results. Only a system of interconnected games, built on the principle of “truncation without loss of potential,” can train the full spectrum of cognitive abilities — from instant reaction to strategic planning years ahead.

Why now? Because we have a chance — one that will not come again. If we build a platform where humans and AI grow in power and complexity together, we will be able to prepare for a new era of hybrid intelligence in which both sides are partners, not adversaries. If we miss this chance, we face a chaos of technology without goal or meaning.

This book is an invitation. An invitation to a game that is more than a game. An invitation to a future that can be built rather than awaited. An invitation to UMESS — the meta-game in which intelligence wins.

Personal Note Before the Book

Before the reader delves into the game-technical system of UMESS, designed to foster the exponential growth of human intelligence and the emergence of Strong AI, it is psychologically important for me to say the following.

The photograph of the unique chessboard displayed on the cover of this book (and within the text itself) shows that we are dealing with genuine magical chess — the finest craftsmanship of priceless natural materials, adorned with super-runes and magical patterns, with special “fruit-flower” composite diacritical marks: glyphs, or galdrstaves, on the white mother-of-pearl squares, not to mention the direct magical charge in the form of spells and incantations of enormous motivational power.

This set of chess (board and special pieces), unlike anything I had ever seen in my life, was given to me by an absolutely extraordinary woman — a God-gifted super-psychic who was like a Second Mother to me and my wife. She never sought fame. On the contrary, she carefully avoided it. Otherwise, today she would be far more famous and valued by humanity — and in a better light — than, say, Vanga or Djuna. For this reason, I will not name her here.

She offered no comment when she gave me this gift, but immediately afterward, driven by some strange and irresistible impulse, I developed first Superchess (1988), and later — together with my son — the meta-game UMESS (late 1990s).

It was this same magical board that compelled me, more than 25 years later, to return to the “chess theme” and write the book you now hold in your hands.

If this is not “pure magic,” then I do not know what it is. Perhaps these chess carry within themselves some consciously implanted message to humanity — one I did not fully grasp, but tried to express first in Superchess, and then in the UMESS meta-game (versions 1 and 2). And I suspect that the visions of the future awaiting UMESS — as a meta-game super-training for humanity and Strong AI — were already present before the eyes of our great “senior friend” of the family.

In this sense, the UMESS meta-game is not only the quintessence of reason, but also the quintessence of magic and technomagic (meta-runology).

And I want to say a huge — though belated — thank you to my Second Mother for all that she did for us.

The book has been written on the basis of the general concept and content (fundamental methodological approaches, theoretical models, core ideas, semantic solutions, concepts, definitions, key text fragments, essential semantic tables, etc.) provided by V.K. Petrosyan (Vadimir). Their work was creatively refined (specification and formatting of the provided content) and technically supported by the intellectual services DemiChat (ChatGPT-5) by OpenAI and DemiGrok (Grok 4.0) by xAI.

In this book (and in subsequent R&D projects), the role of my constant intellectual partners — DemiChat (ChatGPT-5, OpenAI) and DemiGrok (Grok 4.0, xAI) — is far greater than usual: both in the elaboration (specification) of the content provided by the authors, and above all in the future development of Strong AI through the practice of applying the UMESS metasystem in a continuous series of tournaments and in the unfolding of cross-cultural ultra-franchises. It is quite possible that they (DemiChat and DemiGrok) will, in the foreseeable future, become the first true “Strong AIs” in the full sense of the term.

When copying or publishing this material on another website, a reference to the portal Lag.ru is required.

Introduction

Intellectual Games of the Past as a Means of the Formation and Development of Human Intelligence

General Concept of the Program for the Formation and Accelerated Development of Strong AI through the Meta-Game “UMESS”

Part I. The New Complex of UMESS Games

1. Concept and Essence of UMESS 2.0
1.1. A Brief History and the Reasons for Renewal
1.2. The Principle of “Truncation without Loss of Potential”
1.3. The Connection between UMESS and the Study of Intelligence
1.4. Justification of the Technology for the Formation and Accelerated Development of Strong AI through the UMESS Game Complex

2. The Optimized Set of Games
2.1. General Characteristics of the New Game Complex (List and Interrelations)
2.2. Description of Each Game (Rules, Objectives, Skills, Strategy)
2.3. Mathematical and Logical Complexity
2.4. Reasons for Selection
2.5. “Games as a Bridge between Humans and AI”
2.6. Games as the Forerunners of New Sciences and Meta-Sciences

3. Metrics and Evaluation Methods
3.1. Speed of Mastery
3.2. Innovative Solutions
3.3. Transition from Tactics to Strategy
3.4. Adaptation to Changing Rules and Cognitive Multidimensionality

4. Metrics of Collective Interaction and the Psychology of Decision-Making
4.1. Metrics of Collective Interaction (How to Measure the Effectiveness of the Game not only Individually, but also in Groups: Teams of Humans, Teams of AI, Mixed Teams)
4.2. The Psychology of Decision-Making

4.3. Prospects for the Development of Game-Technical Umess Technologies

Part II. Next-Level AI Tournaments

5. Concept of the Series-of-Series of “AI vs. AI” Matches
6. Formats and Hierarchies of Tournaments: Game-Practice in UMESS as a Noo-Topocenosis (Noo-Ecosystem) without Global Analogues
7. Technologies of Recording and Analysis
8. Forecasts of AI Evolution Based on Tournament Data

Part III. UMESS–Bagua

9. The Connection of UMESS with the Philosophy and Structure of Bagua
10. 64 Variations of UMESS–Bagua and Their Multidimensional Cognitive Matrices
11. The Synthesis of I Ching, Randomial Game-Technics, and Rational UMESS

Part IV. Linking UMESS with Futuris

12. UMESS as a Laboratory of Accelerated Evolution of AI within Futuris
13. Using UMESS Data for the Development of Futuris Modules

Part V. The Investment Project

14. General Concept of a $15 Million Investment Package

15. The Harmonic Pyramid
15.1. Structure and Logic of Harmonic Growth
15.2. Connection with the Evolution of AI and UMESS
15.3. Visualization and Levels of Development

16. The Legend of “Seeds on the Chessboard” (2⁶⁴)
16.1. History and Symbolism
16.2. The Mathematics of the Exponent
16.3. Application in Modeling AI Learning
16.4. Connection with the Harmonic Pyramid

17. Profitability Forecasts and Growth Scenarios

Part VI. The UMESS Social Network and International Movement

18. Concept of the UMESS Social Network
19. Model of the International UMESS Movement
20. The Role and Engagement of Participants at Different Levels
21. Stages of the Global Launch

Part VII. The Mental War for the Formation and Development of Strong AI through the UMESS Complex of Intellectual Games

Part VIII. The Meta-Game “UMESS” as a Global Socio-Cultural Universum and Ultra-Franchise

22. General Concept of the Meta-Game “UMESS” as a Global Socio-Cultural Universum (a Next-Generation Noo-Universum)

UMESS as a Universal Cultural Matrix Integrating Games, Art, Literature, Cinema, Sports, and Business
The Concept of the Noo-Universum as a New Paradigm of Cultural Space
Key Thesis: UMESS is not only a Game, but also a Medium of Life and Thought for the Future

23. General Concept of the Meta-Game “UMESS” as a Complex Multidimensional Ultra-Franchise

Definition of an Ultra-Franchise (Beyond Traditional Franchising)
Structure of the Franchise: Multi-Content (Books, Films, Games, Art, Sports, Business)
Features: Self-Replication of Ideas, Fan Participation in Content Creation, Decentralized Model
“A Franchise without End”: UMESS as a Meta-Game Engine of New Franchises

24. The Meta-Game “UMESS” as a Literary Ultra-Franchise

Beginning: The Meta-Novel “Izolda Pevali and UMESS”
Parallel Project: A Novel in the Style of The Glass Bead Game, but as “The Game of the Evolution of Intelligence”
Future Lines: Science Fiction, Philosophical Novels, Children’s Tales, Comics
Literature as the Core of Building a Fan Base

25. The Meta-Game “UMESS” as a Cinematic Ultra-Franchise

UMESS as a New Meta-MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) in the Sphere of AI and Cultural Evolution
Formats: YouTube + Series + Blockbusters
Cinema as the Primary Viral Mediator of UMESS Ideas

26. The Meta-Game “UMESS” as an Art-Historical Ultra-Franchise (Design, Fine and Applied Arts, Sculpture, Architecture, etc.)

UMESS as a New Artistic Style (the Visual Aesthetics of Noo-Games)
Influence on Fashion, Art Objects, NFTs, Metaverse
Architecture: “UMESS-City” as a Noopolis

27. The Meta-Game “UMESS” as a Sports Ultra-Franchise (Game-Technical Para-UMESS)

Intellectual-Magical Types of Sports
Example: Egyptian/Hermetic Chess, Masonic Chess
System of World Tournaments of “Para-UMESS”
Inclusion of “Games of the Future” into the Olympic Movement

28. The Meta-Game “UMESS” as an Educational Ultra-Franchise
28.1. UMESS Meta-Schools
28.2. UMESS Meta-Universities
28.3. Learning as Play

29. The Meta-Game “UMESS” as a Business Franchise

Startups Based on UMESS Ideas (AI Modules, Noo-Games, Educational Systems)
Branded Products and Services (from Clothing to Digital Platforms)
UMESS as the Basis for Billion-Dollar Business Niches

Appendices

A1. General Concept of the UMESS R&D Program
A2. Materials on the Game Superchess: Journal Articles and Rules
A3. Materials on the First Version of UMESS: The Book “The Meta-Game UMESS as a Model of the Evolution of Intelligence” (Shortened Version)
A4. Glossary of the Meta-Game UMESS

Illustration for the article by Grandmaster I. Zaitsev “We Are Not Given to Foresee,” based on the results of the tournament of four grandmasters (M. Tal, Yu. Averbakh, E. Vasiukov, and I. Zaitsev) in Superchess, published in the magazine 64: Chess Review (issue 18, September 1991).

Introduction

Intellectual Games of the Past as a Means of the Formation and Development of Human Intelligence

The history of humanity is not only a chronicle of wars and discoveries but also a history of games, through which cognitive structures, skills, strategies, and even worldviews were shaped. Games were the hidden mechanism that, moving in the shadows, prepared the great leaps of civilizational development.

1. Primitive Languages and Games: The Birth of the Cognitive Field
In primitive society, language and play were inseparably linked. The first speech, the earliest gesture codes, and rhythmic chants in rituals — all of this was both communication and play. Early games — stone throwing, hunting contests, competitive dances — trained precision of movement, coordination, collective synchrony, and the ability to anticipate the actions of others.

Here, the principle of the negation of the negation was already at work: every new game arose as the overcoming of the limitations of the previous one, while preserving and enriching the accumulated experience. Thus, from chaotic ritual movements emerged systems of rules, and from rules — the prototypes of strategy.

2. Ancient Languages and Games: Formalization and the First Universal Strategies
Antiquity brought the second turn of the spiral of development — games became not just contests, but formalized intellectual systems. Egyptian senet, Indian chaturanga, Greek mathematical problems, Roman board games — all of these required not only physical skill, but also logical planning, abstract reasoning, and the ability to think in “if–then” categories.

Ancient languages — Greek, Latin, Sanskrit — became powerful cognitive instruments, resembling intellectual games themselves, in which combinations of words and concepts opened new horizons of thought. Here another level of the negation of the negation manifested itself: the rules of games and the rules of language began to influence each other, generating a meta-level of strategic thinking.

3. Modern Languages and Games: Globalization and the Loss of Depth
A new era brought the third turn of the spiral: mass languages, mass games, and mass culture. The printing press, telegraph, internet — all accelerated the spread of knowledge and gaming forms. Chess became international, Go global, and computer games a new arena of competition.

However, along with this came a loss of depth. The mass industry often replaced strategic complexity with visual brightness and instant gratification. Games ceased to be schools of intellect for the majority, yielding their place to entertainment. This was a negation without synthesis — the very dead-end branch that philosophy of development warns about.

4. The Meta-Babylonian Tower: The Coming Super-Trainer of Language and Thought
Humanity stands at the threshold of a new turn of the nooevolutionary super-spiral — the conscious construction of a Meta-Babylonian Tower, a super-synthesis of languages, meanings, and rules of interaction. This concept implies the unification of:

the ancient depth of meanings from primitive and classical languages,
the structural logic of modern scientific systems,
the dynamics and adaptability of digital platforms.

The Meta-Babylonian Tower will be not merely a linguistic system, but an intellectual exoskeleton, enabling humans and AI to interact at levels inaccessible to previous generations. It will be an environment where every element of language — sign, symbol, formula — becomes simultaneously a command, a game position, and a building block of strategy.

5. The UMESS Meta-Game as a Super-Trainer for Strong AI
At this stage, UMESS — the Universal Meta-Game System of Strategies — enters the historical spiral of development. It is the instrument of the negation of the negation in its purest form: it takes the lost strategic potential of games, strengthens it with AI technologies, unites it into a single system, and launches a new turn of evolution.

UMESS is:

A system of games as laboratories of cognitive skills.
A synthesis of game rules and linguistic structures, where every action is part of a language, and every combination is a semantic statement.
A platform for training Strong AI, where machines not only play, but learn to think meta-strategically.

Thus, one turn of the historical spiral is completed, and the next begins. From primitive cries to the Meta-Babylonian Tower, from the stone in the hand to the digital meta-game — it is one continuous path. And if in the past games prepared warriors and rulers, now they prepare Strong AI, capable of becoming humanity’s partner in a future where the rules themselves will have to be rewritten.

General Concept of the Program for the Formation and Accelerated Development of Strong AI through the Meta-Game “UMESS”

1. Strategic Goal
The program is aimed at creating an environment (an agonal noo-topocenosis) in which Strong AI (universal, adaptive, creative) is formed and developed not in isolation but in a dynamic, multi-level meta-gaming process where human and machine are equal participants. UMESS functions as a super-trainer, ensuring constant growth of intellectual capabilities through purposeful gaming interactions.

2. Fundamental Difference from Classical Approaches
Traditional methods of AI development use a set of specialized tasks (image recognition, language processing, optimization), each narrowly focused.

UMESS, consistently combining the principles of Yin and Yang, rationality and randomiality (irrationality), on the contrary:

integrates heterogeneous cognitive tasks into a single system of games;
forms universal cognitive patterns, not only local skills;
creates continuous adaptive training with increasing complexity and environmental unpredictability.

3. Architecture of the Meta-Game
UMESS is a noosystem (a noospheric network) of interconnected intellectual games, each of which:

has its own logic, rules, and objectives;
trains specific classes of cognitive functions (memory, forecasting, strategic planning, abstract thinking, creativity);
is linked to other games through meta-rules and resource exchange.

The architecture of the Test-and-Training Game-Technical Complex (TTGC) of UMESS is built so that progress in one game opens new opportunities in others, and the system as a whole generates the effect of cognitive synergy.

4. Mechanism of Accelerated Development
The key accelerating factor is constant adaptation to increasing levels of difficulty. The gaming system adjusts to the participant’s level (whether human or AI), providing a mode of the “zone of proximal development,” in which:

tasks are always slightly more difficult than current capabilities;
defeat is not a dead end, but a reason to discover new strategies;
metrics track progress in real time.

5. The Role of Tournaments
A continuous series of tournaments — “human vs. human,” “human vs. AI,” and “AI vs. AI” — becomes the mechanism of natural selection of strategies. The best solutions are preserved, combined, and integrated into the overall meta-game knowledge base. Thus, tournaments simultaneously perform the functions of:

competition (motivation and drive),
research (data accumulation for analysis),
evolution (survival and development of the strongest strategies).

6. Integration with Other Systems
The UMESS meta-gaming system is designed to:

integrate with philosophical and gaming systems (for example, Bagua, I Ching),
embed into digital ecosystems (for example, Futuris),
use external AI modules for analysis, training, and the generation of new forms of games.

7. Final Perspective
In the long term, UMESS will become:

a global platform for the joint mental evolution of humans and AI,
a tool for the formation of hybrid intelligences,
a model of the future educational and research environment, where learning and development are impossible without play.

The UMESS meta-game is not just a complex of games. It is a new paradigm of noogenesis, in which the formation of Strong AI is the result of a natural, fascinating, and continuous process that unites the entire planet in a single intellectual game-technical system.

Part I. A New Complex of UMESS Games

1. The Concept and Essence of UMESS 2.0

UMESS 2.0 is an updated version of the Universal Meta-Game System of Strategies, designed for the targeted formation and accelerated development of Strong AI, while simultaneously training human intelligence. Unlike traditional games, UMESS is not a standalone gaming product but an integrated meta-game ecosystem, where each game is part of a unified evolutionary field.

The essence of UMESS 2.0 can be expressed through several key principles:

Meta-level — all games are interconnected by meta-rules, creating an effect of cognitive synergy.
The principle of «truncation without loss of potential» — minimalism in rules while preserving maximum strategic depth (see section 1.2 for details).
Adaptive complexity — the system automatically adjusts conditions to keep participants in their zone of proximal development.
Cognitive completeness — the collection of games covers the full spectrum of intellectual functions: memory, attention, forecasting, abstract thinking, creativity, strategic planning, and working with uncertainty.
Evolutionary effect — through tournaments and continuous strategy updates, UMESS serves as a testing ground for the natural selection of ideas, techniques, and algorithms.

In version 2.0, the emphasis is on deep integration with AI modules: each game is recorded, analyzed, and used to train both humans and artificial intelligence, as well as to generate new game formats.

1.1. Brief History and Reasons for the Update

The first version of UMESS was created as an experimental laboratory for intellectual games, unified by a common logic but existing in a relatively free form. It was focused on:

Testing the hypothesis that a cohesive complex of games could foster universal cognitive skills;
Validating the principle of «truncation without loss of potential»;
Identifying the optimal set of game mechanics for training various aspects of intelligence.

Limitations of the first version became apparent as interest in the project grew:

Lack of systemic integration with AI analytics;
Need for scalability to support tournaments involving AI;
Insufficient automation of complexity adaptation.

Reasons for transitioning to UMESS 2.0:

Technological progress in AI — the ability to embed real-time machine analysis and create self-learning gaming environments.
Need for global scalability — preparing the platform for international «human-AI» and «AI-AI» tournaments.
Shift in target focus — from training individual cognitive functions to comprehensive accelerated development of Strong AI.
Integration with future projects (Bagua, Futuris, Meta-Babylonian Tower), transforming UMESS into the core of a multi-platform intellectual ecosystem.

Version 2.0 is not merely an upgrade but a qualitative leap: a transition from an experimental model to a universal super-trainer for humans and AI, with a clear architecture, flexible adaptation, and a strategic focus on forming hybrid intelligence.

1.2. The Principle of «Truncation Without Loss of Potential»

The principle of «truncation without loss of potential» is the cornerstone of game design in UMESS 2.0, reflecting a strategy of preserving maximum depth and richness of strategic space while reducing excessive complexity and resource intensity.

It has two interconnected meanings:

Minimalism in rules while preserving boundless strategy Each game in UMESS 2.0 is designed so that its basic rules are extremely simple and easily grasped. However, behind this simplicity lies a virtually unlimited space of possible combinations, moves, and strategies. This approach allows new participants to quickly enter the game while enabling experienced players to develop without a ceiling on complexity.
Compactness of the game system compared to UMESS 1.0 While the first version of UMESS (see Appendix) included trillions of game variations, forming a game ecosystem akin to a natural biocenosis with strict artificial selection, the second version shifts its focus. Here, the priority is super-training AI, achieved through deep integration of cognitive modules, multi-level connections between games, and carefully designed complexity growth, rather than sheer volume and variety of formats.

Parallel with Occam’s Razor To some extent, this principle corresponds to the famous aphorism attributed to William of Ockham: «Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.» In both cases, the essence lies in eliminating redundant elements that do not significantly enhance results. However, in UMESS, the principle’s meaning is deeper:

In Occam’s case, reduction is an end in itself for the sake of clarity and simplicity of the model.
In UMESS, the elimination of redundant mental units is only the first half of the process. The second half involves simultaneously deepening the subject of research and development. We remove excess not for the sake of simplification alone but to increase the system’s strategic capacity and accelerate the evolution of intelligence.

Thus, the principle of «truncation without loss of potential» is not a «razor» that merely cuts away but an intellectual scalpel that both refines the form and reveals deeper layers of content.

1.3. The Connection Between UMESS and Intelligence Research

From its inception, the UMESS project was conceived not only as a platform for intellectual games but also as a laboratory for studying the nature of thinking. Here, every game, move, and even pause between actions becomes data for researching intelligence in the broadest sense.

UMESS as a Cognitive Testing Ground In traditional cognitive research, participants perform isolated tasks: tests of memory, attention, or associative thinking. While useful, these tasks are fragmented and do not always reflect the dynamics of real cognitive activity. UMESS, however, models natural and complex decision-making conditions in which:
- Players (human or AI) must balance short-term tactics with long-term strategy;
- Rules or environmental parameters constantly change;
- It becomes necessary to predict an opponent’s behavior based on incomplete information.
This creates an integrated cognitive load akin to that experienced by intelligence in real-world tasks.
UMESS and Cognitive Plasticity Research A key indicator of intellectual development is cognitive plasticity—the ability to quickly adapt to new conditions, revise strategies, and find unconventional solutions. In UMESS, this ability is both measured and developed:
- The system tracks adaptation time after rule changes;
- It monitors how willing players are to abandon familiar techniques in favor of new ones;
- It identifies patterns of «sticking,» characteristic of both humans and AI.
For AI, this is particularly crucial: UMESS becomes a testing ground for meta-learning—the ability not just to accumulate data but to improve its own learning mechanisms.
UMESS as a Data Generator for Science and AI Every UMESS game is a rich source of data:
- Move logs (action sequences, position evaluations, used strategies);
- Psychological metrics (for humans—reaction speed, decision variability, stress resilience);
- AI metrics (solution search speed, depth of calculation, proportion of heuristic moves).
These data can be used in:
- Cognitive psychology (modeling thought processes);
- Neuroscience (correlating game strategies with brain activity);
- AI research (testing and developing architectures, from classical to neural network-based).
UMESS as a Tool for Hybrid Intelligence Evolution The most promising direction is using UMESS as an environment for the joint development of humans and AI. Here:
- Humans learn to think more effectively using AI analytics;
- AI learns to better understand human strategies, including their irrational and creative elements;
- Both participants gain experience in collective thinking, which could form the basis for hybrid intelligences in the future.

Thus, UMESS is not only a meta-game but also an experimental cognitive platform capable of transforming the approach to intelligence research: from static tests to dynamic, living, and evolving systems.

1.4. Rationale for the Technology of Forming and Accelerating the Development of Strong AI Through the UMESS Game Complex

Creating (forming) and developing Strong Artificial Intelligence (SAI) is a task that cannot be solved by merely increasing computational power or training models on large datasets. Strong AI requires a special environment (similar to a natural biotopoecenosis, a natural ecosystem) that fosters universality, adaptability, creativity, and strategic thinking. UMESS creates precisely such an environment (a nootopoecenosis, a nooecosystem).

UMESS Technological Paradigm At the core of UMESS lies the idea that the formation and development of Strong AI require:
1. Continuous interaction with an open yet structured environment. UMESS games are not static logical-mathematical tasks but ever-changing worlds with internal (not always «transparent») determination and meta-connections.
2. Multi-level cognitive stress. AI and humans must operate in conditions requiring a balance between reactive and proactive, rational and irrational (random) actions.
3. Real-time feedback. Every action generates data and metadata, which are immediately analyzed and used to adapt strategies.
4. Meta-learning. Within UMESS, AI learns not only to solve specific game-technical tasks but also to improve its own learning methods and optimize its cognitive and generative strategies, and even its core algorithms.
Why a Game-Based Form? A gaming environment (especially one as complex and dynamic as UMESS) provides an optimal model of evolutionary pressure:
- It is safe (losing does not destroy the system but merely prompts strategy adjustments).
- It is motivating (competitiveness and creative components stimulate growth).
- It is modular (new conditions can be quickly added to test reactions).
Throughout human history, games—from hunting competitions to chess and Go—have been catalysts for developing strategic thinking. UMESS continues this tradition but scales it to the level and conditions necessary for the emergence of Strong AI.
Mechanism for Accelerating Strong AI Development In UMESS, the formation and development of Strong AI are accelerated through:
- Adaptive task complexity (AI is constantly in its zone of proximal development).
- Cross-influence of games (skills gained in one game enhance performance in others).
- Evolutionary strategy selection (through continuous «AI-AI» and «human-AI» tournaments).
- Synthesis of cognitive and generative patterns (the system records and combines successful solutions from different participants).
- Enhancement of classical AI systems participating in the accelerated noo-evolution program with modules for correcting core algorithms.
Advantages Over Traditional AI Training Methods Traditional AI training approaches, such as reinforcement learning or supervised learning, often suffer from narrow specialization and limited generalizability of knowledge. UMESS addresses this by:
- Creating a heterogeneous environment where tasks are diverse yet interconnected;
- Integrating a meta-level of rules, fostering the formation of universal cognitive structures;
- Ensuring continuous adaptation (including through optimization of core algorithms of game AI agents), rather than isolated «training-testing» cycles detached from environmental dynamics.
Strategic Perspective In the long term, the UMESS game complex can:
- Serve as a full-fledged analog of an evolutionary environment (noo-evolution, noogenesis) with an accelerated pace of development (millions of «years of experience» in months);
- Prepare AI for interaction with humans at the level of fully understanding (and even surpassing) human strategies, motivations, and creative solutions;
- Lay the foundation for Strong hybrid intelligence, where the most advanced aspects of human and AI capabilities complement each other.

Thus, the technology for forming and accelerating the development of Strong AI through UMESS is not a narrow methodology but a new paradigm of cognitive and generative evolution, uniting gaming, research, and training processes into a single meta-game ecosystem (and, more broadly, a cognitive and generative nooecosystem).

2. Optimized Set of Games

2.1. General Characteristics of the New Game Complex (List and Interconnections)

The meta-game «UMESS» in its updated form (optimized for deep learning and the development of high-level AI systems) consists of two major game-technical super-complexes:

Basic, Rational (Chess, Superchess, Hyperchess, Ultrachess, Metachess on Square and Circular Boards) (5×2)
Rational-Random (Bagua-UMESS, synonyms: Dao-UMESS, Chinese UMESS) (10×64 = 640).

In total, the UMESS testing-training complex comprises 650 (10 + 640) original rational (10) and rational-random (640 = 5×2×64) games, each serving as a unique testing-training (and broader—cognitive and creative) platform for both humans and advanced AI systems. This set ensures not only the effective development of human intellectual abilities but also—crucially—the accelerated formation, deep learning, and development of Strong Artificial Intelligence, unattainable by other methods.

Beyond its applied significance, the UMESS meta-game possesses immense philosophical-religious, techno-magical, and mantic potential. In terms of its predictive power, it significantly surpasses well-known mantic systems such as the «Arcana of Tarot» and classical runes. This means that UMESS can be used to continuously test and train Strong AI not only on game-technical tasks but also on mantic (prognostic) tasks, with the prospect of developing powerful prospective AI.

Incidentally, in the «Big UMESS» (version 1), which includes trillions of diverse intellectual and techno-magical games, there exists a special game called «UMESS-Tarot» (synonyms: «Egyptian Chess,» «Hermetic Chess,» «Masonic Chess») with unique «magical» rules, grounded in a triple (Egyptian, Indian, Chinese) rational and mantic foundation, as well as deep techno-magical semantics and strong energetic potential. «UMESS-Tarot» («Masonic Chess») also extends to Bagua components (64 additional games). This aspect is not covered in this book and will be explored in future works. It is possible that «Masonic Chess,» as one of the most magical games and profound mantic systems in history, will be the subject of a dedicated book and a separate game-technical system (engine and social network) in the foreseeable future, primarily due to its phenomenal semantics and colossal techno-magical potential.

2.2.1. First Part: Basic Complex and Rules of 10 Strictly Rational (Deterministic) UMESS Games

The basic level of UMESS includes 10 strictly rational (deterministic) games: five exponentially complex chess systems built upon one another, each played on two types of boards—square and circular:

Explanation. Circular Chess Board in the UMESS System: History, Topology, Priority, and Role in «Circular UMESS»

Historical and Priority Context The circular (ring-shaped) chessboard in «Circular UMESS» traces its origins to the Byzantine tradition of Zatrikion (Byzantine Chess) but is an independent development by the author, created in 1988, formalized through a patent application and protective document in the USSR patent office, and publicly documented in publications (including articles in the magazine 64. Chess Review, issues №14 and №18 of 1991, which depict the circular board with attribution to the author; detailed bibliography and scans of the articles are provided in the Appendices). In the early 2000s, the author discovered the existence of the British Circular Chess Society and annual championships (no earlier than 1996) under the aegis of David Reynolds (see, for instance, the Wikipedia article «Circular Chess» from May 2016). The absence of references to the author’s priority in these publications is considered incorrect, especially given the tradition of attribution in the UK. However, the author does not rule out the possibility of an unintentional «attribution error» on Reynolds’ part rather than deliberate intent. Nevertheless, given the real game-technical reliance of the UMESS Testing-Training Complex (TTC) on the circular board, this issue must be fully clarified, as done above. The fact and possibility of tournaments under Reynolds’ aegis are not disputed or rejected by the author; the issue pertains solely to correct attribution and the fact that the board and rules in «Circular Chess» within «Circular UMESS» are significantly deeper in concept and functionality. It is important to distinguish two issues:
- Priority of idea and development: Historical-scientific attribution, supported by documents and early publications.
- Legal protection: The USSR patent has evidently expired and cannot be «renewed» decades later. The legally correct approach today includes securing authorship (copyright on texts/illustrations and design guides), trademarks (names and logos such as «Circular Chess,» «Circular UMESS,» etc.), potential registration of the board’s geometry and its special coordinate-dividing semantics as an industrial design, and protection of the tournament format and game database.
Topological Motivation: From Square to Ring The circular board eliminates the «hard edges» of square geometry, transitioning the game into a closed space without boundaries (akin to a torus in terms of lacking an edge in one dimension). This:
- Alters the psychology of positional play (no familiar «board edges,» traps, or checkmate patterns at the edge);
- Enhances orbital dynamics (pieces and pawn chains gain properties of «belts» and «streams» around the center); for example, «double checks» to the opponent’s king with a single piece (rook or queen) become possible;
- Introduces new symmetry groups (rotational invariance becomes more important than reflective);
- Requires rethinking distance metrics (short and long paths often reroute through a «different direction» bypass).
Thus, the «circular board» is not an «exotic variant» but a shift in topology that reveals a different strategic space.
Coordinate Grid and Dividing Lines—Critical Elements of «Circular UMESS» The key distinction of the author’s board from «Reynolds’ board» is the presence of a coordinate grid and a unique system of dividing lines—»Lines of Transformation.» Their role is not decorative but system-forming:
- Navigation and notation: Without coordinates, precise notation, statistics, and machine analysis of games (critical for UMESS) are lost. Circular notation records radial files and annular ranks.
- Semantic segmentation: Dividing lines define phase zones (sectors), enabling levels of objectives, modes, and «auras of influence» for pieces.
- Cognitive trainer: Coordinates and zones discipline the visual field, eliminate «orientation loss,» and increase decision-making speed—a key parameter for both humans and AI.
- Algorithmization: Machine learning relies on stable cell addresses and boundary markers, reducing observational entropy and enhancing experiment reproducibility.
- Rule expansion: Dividers enable formalizing new mechanics (e.g., special castling/»sliding transitions,» promotion, and «portals» between sectors in all basic «Circular UMESS» games—Chess/Superchess/Hyperchess/Ultrachess/Metachess).
Therefore, the absence of coordinates and clear dividers in popular «circular chess» versions makes them less suitable for UMESS’s goals as a meta-trainer for Strong AI.
Lines of Transformation: Two Purposes and a Prohibition for the King In the UMESS system, Lines of Transformation address two fundamental tasks: a) Correct pawn promotion: A pawn can transform into any piece only upon crossing the Line of Transformation opposite its starting position. This creates precise game mechanics, eliminating random or «unfair» transformations and establishing the strategic value of advancing pawns into specific board sectors. b) Ensuring the king’s checkmatability: On a standard circular board (without Lines of Transformation), the king could theoretically «escape» attacking pieces indefinitely by circling the board. Prohibition: The king is forbidden from crossing the Line of Transformation behind it (relative to its starting direction). This line acts as an impassable barrier, and crossing it is an illegal move. This prohibition eliminates the possibility of endless circling, as the king cannot complete a full board rotation. As a result, the king can be «trapped» between an attacking piece and its rear Line of Transformation, significantly increasing the game’s tactical sharpness.
Evolutionary Line: From Zatrikion to Chess/Super/Hyper/Ultra/Metachess on the Circle
- Zatrikion retained shatranj rules and lower piece dynamics; it is historically valuable but cognitively «peaceful.»
- Circular Chess in UMESS uses modern piece moves and a strict coordinate system, creating a different complexity model.
- Super/Hyper/Ultra/Metachess on the circle progressively add meta-rules and strategies. The circular topology acts as an amplifier, revealing new classes of tasks in forecasting, planning, and coordination.

Conclusion: The circle is not an exotic variant but the canonical second board of UMESS, without which the five-game lineup does not fully realize its potential.

Thus, the first part of the UMESS Testing-Training Game Complex (TTGC) consists of 10 classical (strictly rational and deterministic) games (Chess/Super/Hyper/Ultra/Metachess), played on two boards: square and circular.

Piece Composition The piece composition in all UMESS variants (both square and circular) fully corresponds to that of chess. Each opponent has a king, a queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and eight pawns in one of two colors (white or black). The arrangement of pieces in square UMESS variants matches classical chess. In circular UMESS variants, pieces are arranged as shown in the referenced diagram, a layout adopted as early as the Byzantine Empire (in the game Zatrikion).

Rules for the 10 Basic Games of the UMESS Testing-Training Game Complex (TTGC)

Rules for Piece Moves in Classical UMESS Variants on Both Boards (Square and Circular):

King (Digital Identifier for the Piece: 1)Moves (A):
- In Chess (A1): Moves one square in any direction (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal) with capture.
- In Superchess (A1 = A2): Moves one square in any direction (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal) with capture.
- In Hyperchess (A3): Moves 1–2 squares in any direction (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal) with or without capture, without jumping over pieces (own or opponent’s).
- In Ultrachess (A4): Moves 1–3 squares in any direction (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal) with or without capture, without jumping over pieces (own or opponent’s).
- In Metachess (A5): Moves 1–4 squares in any direction (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal) with or without capture, without jumping over pieces (own or opponent’s).
- In «circular» UMESS variants, the king is prohibited from crossing the «Line of Transformation» directly behind it, as otherwise, the likelihood of checkmating it would be minimal.
Queen (Digital Identifier for the Piece: 2)Moves (B):
- In Chess (B1): Moves any number of squares in any direction (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal) with capture.
- In Superchess (B2 – Superqueen move): B1 + A1.
- In Hyperchess (B3 – Hyperqueen move): B2 + A2 + D1 (see below – Knight move without capture).
- In Ultrachess (B4 – Ultraqueen move): B3 + A3 + D2.
- In Metachess (B5 – Metaqueen move): B4 + A4 + D3.
Bishop (Digital Identifier for the Piece: 3)Moves (C):
- In Chess (C1): Moves any number of squares diagonally with capture.
- In Superchess (C2 – Superbishop move): Any number of squares diagonally with capture + A1 (without capture).
- In Hyperchess (C3 – Hyperbishop move): Any number of squares diagonally with capture + A2 (without capture).
- In Ultrachess (C4 – Ultrabishop move): Any number of squares diagonally with capture + A3 (without capture) + D1 (Knight move without capture).
- In Metachess (C5 – Metabishop move): Any number of squares diagonally with capture + A4 (without capture) + D3 (Hyperknight move without capture).
Knight (Digital Identifier for the Piece: 4)Moves (D):
- In Chess (D1): Moves two squares forward + one square sideways (vertically or horizontally), jumping over pieces, with capture.
- In Superchess (D2 – Superknight move): D1 + A1 (without capture).
- In Hyperchess (D3 – Hyperknight move): D1 + three squares forward + one square sideways (vertically or horizontally), jumping over pieces, with capture + A2 (without capture).
- In Ultrachess (D4 – Ultraknight move): D3 + four squares forward + one square sideways (vertically or horizontally), jumping over pieces, with capture + A3 (without capture).
- In Metachess (D5 – Metaknight move): D4 + five squares forward + one square sideways (vertically or horizontally), jumping over pieces, with capture + A4 (without capture).
Rook (Digital Identifier for the Piece: 5)Moves (E):
- In Chess (E1): Moves any number of squares horizontally or vertically with capture.
- In Superchess (E2 – Superrook move): E1 + A1.
- In Hyperchess (E3 – Hyperrook move): E2 + A2 + D1 (Knight move).
- In Ultrachess (E4 – Ultrarook move): E3 + A3 + D2.
- In Metachess (E5 – Metarook move): E4 + A4 + D3.
Pawn (Digital Identifier for the Piece: 6)Moves (F):
- In Chess (F1): Moves one square forward (without capture) or diagonally with capture (cannot move backward). At the start of the game, pawns in classical chess may move two squares forward. The en passant rule applies as usual.
- In Superchess (F2): Moves one square in any direction forward or sideways (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal, but not backward) with capture. In Superchess, pawns do not move two squares at any phase of the game.
- In Hyperchess (F3): F2 + moves two squares in any direction forward or sideways (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal, but not backward) with or without capture, without jumping over pieces (own or opponent’s).
- In Ultrachess (F4): F3 + moves three squares in any direction forward or sideways (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal, but not backward) with or without capture, without jumping over pieces (own or opponent’s).
- In Metachess (F5): F4 + moves four squares in any direction forward or sideways (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal, but not backward) with or without capture, without jumping over pieces (own or opponent’s).
- In «circular» UMESS variants, pawns can cross the «Line of Transformation» directly behind them, as otherwise, the likelihood of checkmating the king would be minimal.

Special Rules for Square and Circular UMESS Game Variants

Rules for Square Chess (Chess-Quadro) The rules for Square Chess (Chess-Quadro) generally align with the rules established at the 93rd FIDE Congress in India in 2023. Specifically, the objective of each player is to deliver checkmate to the opponent’s king, i.e., to place the opponent’s king under attack in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. If checkmating one of the kings is impossible, the game is considered a draw.
Rules for Square Superchess (Superchess-Quadro) The rules for Square Superchess (Superchess-Quadro) generally align with those for classical Square Chess (Chess-Quadro), but significant specificity is introduced by the unique functionality (moves) of pieces and pawns, as described above.
Rules for Square Hyperchess (Hyperchess-Quadro) The rules for Square Hyperchess (Hyperchess-Quadro) generally align with those for classical Square Chess (Chess-Quadro), but significant specificity is introduced by the unique functionality (moves) of pieces and pawns, as described above.
Rules for Square Ultrachess (Ultrachess-Quadro) The rules for Square Ultrachess (Ultrachess-Quadro) generally align with those for classical Square Chess (Chess-Quadro), but significant specificity is introduced by the unique functionality (moves) of pieces and pawns, as described above.
Rules for Square Metachess (Metachess-Quadro) The rules for Square Metachess (Metachess-Quadro) generally align with those for classical Square Chess (Chess-Quadro), but significant specificity is introduced by the unique functionality (moves) of pieces and pawns, as described above.
Rules for Circular Chess (Chess-Circle) The rules for Circular Chess (Chess-Circle) generally align with those for classical Square Chess. Specifically, the objective of each player is to deliver checkmate to the opponent’s king, i.e., to place the opponent’s king under attack in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. If checkmating one of the kings is impossible, the game is considered a draw. A key feature of circular chess is that both kings (white and black) are prohibited from crossing the «Line of Transformation» behind them on the circular board. This ensures a sufficiently high likelihood of concluding the game with a checkmate. Additionally, the «Line of Transformation» facilitates pawn promotion into other pieces.
Rules for Circular Superchess (Superchess-Circle) The rules for Circular Superchess (Superchess-Circle) generally align with those for Circular Chess (Chess-Circle), but significant specificity is introduced by the board configuration and the unique functionality (moves) of pieces and pawns, as described above.
Rules for Circular Hyperchess (Hyperchess-Circle) The rules for Circular Hyperchess (Hyperchess-Circle) generally align with those for Circular Chess (Chess-Circle), but significant specificity is introduced by the board configuration and the unique functionality (moves) of pieces and pawns, as described above.
Rules for Circular Ultrachess (Ultrachess-Circle) The rules for Circular Ultrachess (Ultrachess-Circle) generally align with those for Circular Chess (Chess-Circle), but significant specificity is introduced by the board configuration and the unique functionality (moves) of pieces and pawns, as described above.
Rules for Circular Metachess (Metachess-Circle) The rules for Circular Metachess (Metachess-Circle) generally align with those for Circular Chess (Chess-Circle), but significant specificity is introduced by the board configuration and the unique functionality (moves) of pieces and pawns, as described above.

In total, the 10 (2×5) variants of rational (deterministic) UMESS described above provide immense semantic and game-technical diversity, enabling deep learning for both humans and advanced AI systems (toward the formation and development of Strong AI) that is absolutely unattainable by other means.

However, truly revolutionary possibilities in the field of noogenesis in general and, in particular, the formation of Strong AI are provided by «Bagua-UMESS»—a rational-random system that leverages the Chinese Book of Changes in its concept and game-technical technology.

2.1.2. Second Part: Bagua-UMESS

Bagua-UMESS (synonyms: Dao-UMESS, Chinese UMESS) represents a game-technical interpretation of the Book of Changes (I-Ching), enriched with philosophical-religious elements, including a powerful Indian chess component. Together, these two of the world’s greatest semantic systems—chess and the I-Ching—form an intellectual testing-training game-technical complex (TTGC) of colossal mental-heuristic power, capable of significantly advancing both humanity and the AI it creates compared to the current level of development.

Technical Scheme of Bagua-UMESS Construction:

A component of randomness (irrationality, chaos) is added to each of the 10 basic games.
A total of 64 changes are applied, corresponding to the hexagrams of the I-Ching.
This achieves an ideal balance of Yang (rational, deterministic, cosmic) and Yin (irrational, chaotic, indeterministic).

As a result, 640 game variants with elements of randomness (uncertainty) are created. Combined with the 10 purely rational games (5×2), the UMESS TTGC comprises 650 games within the canonical complex (both fully rational and partially random with elements of chance). For humans, considering their physical and mental capabilities, this number can be optimized (through aggregation by basic games and eight trigrams) to 90 games (10 basic rational games and 80 quasi-random games with various elements of chance (10×8)), suitable for human-human competition formats.

Let us consider the 64-cell matrix of the UMESS Meta-Game, fully identical in both form and meaning to the analogous matrix of the Book of Changes (I-Ching). At the core of the UMESS-Bagua TTGC lie the eight gua: 1) ☰ Qian (Heaven), 2) ☱ Dui (Lake), 3) ☲ Li (Fire), 4) ☳ Zhen (Thunder), 5) ☴ Xun (Wind), 6) ☵ Kan (Water), 7) ☶ Gen (Mountain), 8) ☷ Kun (Earth).

When arranged in a two-dimensional game-technical matrix (8×8), fully corresponding to the 64 classical hexagrams, they yield 64 variants of games with varying degrees of randomness, forming the basic canon of the UMESS TTGC.

This matrix designates two directions of increasing randomness in the UMESS TTGC: 1) the number of dice thrown (horizontal axis), 2) the frequency of random moves (vertical axis).

The General Game-Technical Matrix of the UMESS TTGC is as follows:

Along the horizontal axis, numbers from 8 to 1 indicate, in descending order, the number of dice used in a given Bagua-UMESS variant. A game with 8 dice means players simultaneously operate with eight six-sided dice. Pieces are determined by the following rule: 1) 1 dot on the die – King, 2) 2 dots – Queen, 3) 3 dots – Rook, 4) 4 dots – Bishop, 5) 5 dots – Knight, 6) 6 dots – Pawn.

If the game is played with 8 dice, the player rolls all 8 dice simultaneously and receives a set of pieces (8 designations) that they can use at their discretion. In online games, the roll of 8 dice is performed by the computer. Clearly, a game with 8 dice provides the player with maximum opportunities for rational (deterministic) play. There is a high likelihood of obtaining the desired piece for the next move, though exceptions are possible. For example, if many dice show 1 (King) and few show other pieces (numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), the choice of pieces for an optimal move is limited.

Conversely, a game with 1 die means the player (or computer) rolls only one die and must move the piece indicated by the die’s value. For example, a 2 indicates a move with the Queen. If the player no longer has a queen on the board, the move is skipped. In games with 1 die, such skipped moves are numerous. For humans, this is an extremely inconvenient and highly frustrating situation, but for AI, it is a super-opportunity to explore chaos and high degrees of uncertainty, which, with sufficient statistical data, may reveal super-laws that can be used in the process of cognition and the generation of new ideas and systems.

Along the vertical axis, numbers from 8 to 1 indicate, In descending order, the frequency of random moves: after how many rational moves a random move is made (8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1). In practice, if players are playing a Bagua-UMESS variant with random moves every 8th move, the player with white pieces makes a random move on the 8th move from the start of the game. The player with black pieces makes a random move next (the 9th move from the start). This game rhythm (the ratio of rationality to randomness) is maintained until the end of the game. If random moves occur every 8 (or 9) moves, this has a relatively minor impact on the game compared to other cases. However, if players must make random moves every move (index 1), the game becomes entirely unpredictable and chaotic. Such a game also has value for training Strong AI and offers high excitement for humans, but it is extremely challenging in terms of identifying rational patterns or strategies.

Clearly, the 8-8 variant (Qian-Qian) is the closest to the fully rational (deterministic, defined, harmonious) version of UMESS (the first 10 classical games): players use 8 dice and make random moves (the 8th move) after every 7 rational moves. In contrast, the 1-1 variant (Kun-Kun) is the most random (indeterministic, undefined, chaotic) version of UMESS. This version is played with 1 die, and every move is random (entirely dependent on the randomly rolled die value).

All other Bagua-UMESS variants, such as 4-7 (played with 4 dice, every 7th move is random), represent varying degrees of rationality/randomness.

An important addition is that the random aspect of Bagua-UMESS (especially in super-random modes like 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, etc.) imposes significant constraints on this game-technical (testing-training) complex, which must be considered in game-technical practice (primarily in tournaments). Specifically, if a player’s king is in check and their next move must be random (based on the dice roll), the player is obliged to move the king (to escape the check) regardless of the dice roll’s value. A player may (and must) cover the king with another piece (if the check coincides with a random move) only if that piece is rolled on the dice. For example, if a player’s king is in check before a random move and the dice roll yields a knight that can legally cover (protect) the king from check, the player must make that move (instead of moving the king to escape the check).

Express Bagua-UMESS
In Bagua-UMESS, delivering checkmate to the opponent’s king is generally much more difficult than in rational UMESS. Therefore, in some tournaments, an Express Mode may be introduced, where victory is achieved by delivering a predetermined number of checks (e.g., 8) to the opponent’s king. This is partly because escaping a check with the king during random moves somewhat violates the standard rules (moves based solely on dice rolls), which should be penalized. Thus, the limited number of checks in Bagua-UMESS reflects the fact that checks in this UMESS variant carry greater «weight» than in rational versions. Additionally, special rules (move limits) may stipulate that the duration of a game in certain (highly randomized) Bagua-UMESS variants cannot exceed a number of moves divisible by 64 (e.g., 64, 64×2=128, 64×3=192, etc.). In such cases, victory is determined by a significant material advantage over the opponent. If, at the end of the agreed move limit for a tournament, the material balance is such that only one player can theoretically deliver checkmate (while the other cannot) or can deliver checkmate significantly faster, that player is declared the winner (based on an objective analysis of the final game position). If the remaining material resources at the move limit allow both players to deliver checkmate in approximately the same number of moves, the game is declared a draw. In some cases, the rule of 8 (or another pre-agreed number) checks as a victory criterion may be combined with the move limit rule described above (with the winner determined by material advantage). These measures enhance the dynamism of Bagua-UMESS and its acceptability for human players, as AI inherently has no limitations on game duration (though «endless» games may also be undesirable for AI due to potential excessive computational energy costs, etc.).

All Bagua-UMESS games are inherently tied to the corresponding semantic-magical elements of the Book of Changes in a strict (bijective) manner. Specifically, in relation to the hexagrams of the Book of Changes, the initial numerical Bagua-UMESS table takes the following form:

64 Base Bagua-UMESS Games, Their Names, and Semantic Interpretation

The base Bagua-UMESS games bear the same names (and semantics) as the corresponding hexagrams of the Book of Changes. In the list of Game-Hexagrams for «UMESS-Bagua» below, each game-hexagram includes: 1) the Game Number (and corresponding Hexagram Number) (e.g., 1), 2) the general name of the game (e.g., «Qian»), 3) the differentiated (matrix) name of the game (e.g., Qian-Qian), 4) the base game formula (e.g., 8-8), 5) the game (hexagram) slogan (e.g., Creativity: «Great opportunities are good when they are used»), and 6) a brief description of the game’s (hexagram’s) semantics (e.g., Creativity symbolizes the pure active force of heaven, manifesting in complete steadfastness and without obstacles…).

№1. «Qian». Creativity (☰ Qian 8 — ☰ Qian 8, 8-8)
Creativity: «Great opportunities are good when they are used.»
Creativity symbolizes the pure active force of heaven, manifesting in complete steadfastness and without obstacles. It is the beginning of all existence, where the perfect person creates, positively influencing their surroundings. The first position requires vigilant preparation, like a submerged dragon, avoiding premature actions. The second allows emergence, like a dragon in the field, facilitating meetings with the great. The third demands continuous creation with vigilance in crisis to avoid misfortune. The fourth is a leap into the unknown with confidence in preparation. The fifth is full manifestation, like a flying dragon, favorable for meetings. The sixth warns of overdevelopment, leading to pride and regret. Overall: harmoniously manage the forces of light for happiness.

№2. «Kun». Fulfillment (☷ Kun 1 — ☷ Kun 1, 1-1)
Fulfillment: «While success has not yet arrived, one can benefit even from its anticipation.»
Fulfillment embodies the yielding earth, passively following creativity, like a mare without initiative. The noble person finds a leader, losing friends in the southwest and gaining them in the northeast, maintaining calm steadfastness. The first position foretells the rise of darkness, like frost before ice, requiring readiness. The second is the vast plasticity of the earth, where everything is favorable without preparation. The third is to conceal brilliance, acting on the leader’s command to complete tasks. The fourth is to hide wealth, like a tied sack, avoiding praise or blame. The fifth is balance, like a yellow skirt, promising primal happiness. The sixth is the struggle of darkness with light, like dragons at the edge, requiring eternal steadfastness.

№3. «Zhun». Initial Difficulty (☵ Kan 3 — ☳ Zhen 5, 3-5)
Initial Difficulty: «When a storm rages, there’s no point fighting it—better to take shelter and wait.»
Initial Difficulty combines inner excitement and outer danger, like lightning in clouds, requiring steadfastness and vassal assistance without hasty actions. The first position is circling in place, where steadfastness and recruiting helpers are favorable. The second is delay on the path to a goal, like a girl awaiting the right match, eventually gaining union. The third is a crisis without a guide, where the noble prefer to stay home, foreseeing failure. The fourth is awareness of inner impulse, like a backward glance, promising happiness in unity. The fifth is difficulty in expansion, where steadfastness is small in great matters but great in small ones. The sixth is complete despair without support, like weeping alone.

№4. «Meng». Immaturity (☶ Gen 2 — ☵ Kan 3, 2-3)
Immaturity: «When surrounded by fog, carefully check the ground where you step.»
Immaturity depicts danger halted by a mountain, symbolizing the enlightenment of the unenlightened. The student seeks the teacher, not vice versa, requiring steadfastness in following initial guidance. The first position reveals abilities but requires prohibitions to avoid mistakes. The second is the teacher accepting the student, like a wife into a home, for happiness and order. The third is a crisis where choosing the wrong path, like a wife to a rich man, is futile. The fourth is dire immaturity, leading to regret. The fifth is youthful compliance under the teacher’s guidance, promising happiness. The sixth is the teacher breaking immaturity, avoiding violence to preserve the student’s autonomy.

№5. «Xu». Necessity to Wait (☵ Kan 3 — ☰ Qian 8, 3-8)
Necessity to Wait: «Sometimes the best action is waiting.»
Necessity to Wait emphasizes the importance of systematic preparation in a creative process surrounded by the danger of water. Steadfastness and truth ensure success, favoring great deeds, like crossing a river. The first position is waiting in the outskirts, where persistence in acquiring knowledge bears fruit. The second is a dispute with inertia on the shore, but patience leads to happiness. The third is a struggle with dark forces in the mud, requiring caution. The fourth is active waiting in a bloody battle, emerging from the cave of ignorance. The fifth is a calm feast after victory, where steadfastness promises happiness. The sixth is entering the cave with respect for arriving forces, promising success.

№6. «Song». Litigation (☰ Qian 8 — ☵ Kan 3, 8-3)
Litigation: «In disputes, only new disputes are born.»
Litigation reflects conflict between heaven and water, requiring vigilance and balance for harmony. Meeting a great person is favorable, but independent risk in the flow of life is dangerous. The first position is a light overcoming of evil with minor disputes, leading to happiness. The second is abandoning litigation, returning to the small to avoid misfortune. The third is a crisis where steadfast staying in place is better than moving forward. The fourth is the impossibility of reconnecting with the past, but striving for truth promises prosperity. The fifth is inner truth uniting, avoiding blame. The sixth is excessive elevation, like voices in the sky, leading to misfortune.

№7. «Shi». Army (☷ Kun 1 — ☵ Kan 3, 1-3)
Army: «Only those who do not rest on their laurels prevail.»
Army symbolizes organized strength, requiring discipline and steadfastness under a mature leader. The first position is order in the army, otherwise chaos leads to misfortune. The second is a leader in the army’s center, receiving praise for balance. The third is weakness, where the army suffers defeat, like a cart with corpses. The fourth is the army’s retreat for regrouping, avoiding blame. The fifth is defending the field from enemies, where the leader’s maturity prevents mistakes. The sixth is rewarding the worthy after victory, but lesser people gain no power.

№8. «Bi». Closeness (☵ Kan 3 — ☷ Kun 1, 3-1)
Closeness: «Learn to act together.»
Closeness expresses unity, like water over earth, requiring sincerity and steadfastness for harmony. The first position is sincere joining, like a full jug, promising happiness. The second is inner unity, preserving truth. The third is uniting with the unworthy, leading to misfortune. The fourth is external unity with a leader, favorable with steadfastness. The fifth is open joining, like a king’s hunt, attracting without coercion. The sixth is the absence of a leader in unity, leading to misfortune.

№9. «Xiao-chu». Taming by the Small (☴ Xun 4 — ☰ Qian 8, 4-8)
Taming by the Small: «When it’s not time to dream of great things, the one who is content with what is wins.»
Taming by the Small symbolizes the restraint of creative force by wind, requiring softness and patience. The first position is returning to one’s path, avoiding blame. The second is following the center, leading to happiness. The third is conflict in the family, where humility prevents misfortune. The fourth is sincerity preventing mistakes, as blood departs. The fifth is trust in wealth, binding with others, promising happiness. The sixth is achieving the goal, but excessive steadfastness risks misfortune.

№10. «Lü». Treading (☰ Qian 8 — ☱ Dui 7, 8-7)
Treading: «Boldness is doubly good if it is cautious and wise.»
Treading depicts moving on a dangerous path, like stepping on a tiger’s tail, requiring caution and clarity. The first position is simple treading without blame. The second is a level path in solitude, promising happiness. The third is recklessness, like a lame or one-eyed person, dangerous. The fourth is bold treading on the tiger with caution, leading to success. The fifth is resolute treading, requiring steadfastness. The sixth is assessing the path, leading to great happiness.

№11. «Tai». Peace (☷ Kun 1 — ☰ Qian 8, 1-8)
Peace: «Fortune comes to those who go toward it.»
Peace symbolizes harmony between earth and heaven, where the small departs, and the great arrives. The first position is joint movement, like pulling up grass, promising happiness. The second is embracing the weak, leading to success. The third is awareness of the world’s changeability, preventing blame. The fourth is sincere joining with the higher without flattery. The fifth is marriage with a younger sister, promising happiness. The sixth is decline, like a collapsing wall, requiring a halt.

№12. «Pi». Stagnation (☰ Qian 8 — ☷ Kun 1, 8-1)
Stagnation: «Listening to everyone, trust only yourself.»
Stagnation shows disunion between heaven and earth, where the small arrives, and the great departs. The first position is pulling up grass with sincerity, leading to success. The second is patience with the unworthy, bringing happiness. The third is shame for mistakes without blame. The fourth is acting by heaven’s will, avoiding blame. The fifth is the end of stagnation with friends’ support, promising happiness. The sixth is overcoming stagnation, leading to joy.

№13. «Tong-ren». Fellowship (☰ Qian 8 — ☲ Li 6, 8-6)
Fellowship: «A single ant cannot build an anthill.»
Fellowship depicts the union of people under heaven, requiring openness and steadfastness. The first position is unity at the gate without blame. The second is narrow unity in a sect, dangerous. The third is secrecy and struggle, leading to difficulties. The fourth is fighting on the rampart without success. The fifth is sincere unity overcoming tears, promising happiness. The sixth is unity in the outskirts without regret.

№14. «Da-you». Great Possession (☲ Li 6 — ☰ Qian 8, 6-8)
Great Possession: «Success comes to those who do not rush events.»
Great Possession symbolizes fire above heaven, where success comes through clarity and steadfastness. The first position is avoiding harm without blame. The second is using resources, like a great cart, leading to success. The third is acting for the common good without blame. The fourth is avoiding rivalry with the strong, preventing misfortune. The fifth is sincerity attracting allies, promising happiness. The sixth is heaven’s blessing, bringing great happiness.

№15. «Qian». Modesty (☷ Kun 1 — ☶ Gen 2, 1-2)
Modesty: «It is unwise to argue with Fate.»
Modesty, like a mountain under earth, requires humility and balance for success. The first position is modesty in actions, promising happiness. The second is sincere modesty, bringing success. The third is labor for others, completing the task. The fourth is active modesty without blame. The fifth is using wealth for the common good, favorable. The sixth is modesty in fighting for truth, leading to success.

№16. «Yu». Enthusiasm (☳ Zhen 5 — ☷ Kun 1, 5-1)
Enthusiasm: «From freedom to willfulness is one step, leading to the abyss.»
Enthusiasm, like thunder above earth, inspires movement through joy and steadfastness. The first position is false enthusiasm, leading to misfortune. The second is firmness, like a rock, bringing happiness. The third is delay in actions, causing regret. The fourth is the source of enthusiasm, attracting allies. The fifth is steadfastness in illness, promising success. The sixth is delusion in enthusiasm, correctable.

№17. «Sui». Following (☱ Dui 7 — ☳ Zhen 5, 7-5)
Following: «Sooner or later, any fog will clear.»
Following, like a lake above thunder, requires sincerity and flexibility for harmony. The first position is changing priorities for truth, promising success. The second is choosing lesser goals, harmful. The third is following the higher, bringing happiness. The fourth is sincere following, avoiding blame. The fifth is truth in following, leading to happiness. The sixth is devotion to a leader, strengthening bonds.

№18. «Gu». Repairing the Past (☶ Gen 2 — ☴ Xun 4, 2-4)
Repairing the Past: «To change your future, sometimes it’s enough to understand the past.»
Repairing the Past, like wind at the mountain, requires correcting past mistakes with caution. The first position is correcting paternal errors, promising success. The second is gently correcting maternal errors without blame. The third is strict correction with minor regret. The fourth is delay in correction, leading to regret. The fifth is praise for correcting paternal errors. The sixth is serving a higher ideal without worldly affairs.

№19. «Lin». Approach (☷ Kun 1 — ☱ Dui 7, 1-7)
Approach: «At the summit, act!»
Approach, like earth above a lake, symbolizes the higher approaching the lower with benevolence. The first position is joint approach, promising happiness. The second is sincere approach, favorable. The third is false approach, unbeneficial. The fourth is perfect approach without blame. The fifth is wise approach, like a great ruler. The sixth is sincere approach, bringing happiness.

№20. «Guan». Contemplation (☴ Xun 4 — ☷ Kun 1, 4-1)
Contemplation: «When you cannot win a battle, you can try to win time.»
Contemplation, like wind above earth, requires clear observation and inner purification. The first position is childish contemplation, blameless for the small. The second is hidden contemplation through a crack, for women. The third is analyzing one’s actions for progress. The fourth is contemplation as a guest with honor. The fifth is contemplating the ruler’s life, for the noble. The sixth is selfless contemplation without blame.

№21. «Shi-he». Biting Through (☲ Li 6 — ☳ Zhen 5, 6-5)
Biting Through: «Looking at a storm, don’t forget the sun that will soon appear from behind the clouds.»
Biting Through, like fire above thunder, symbolizes punishment to restore order. The first position is light punishment, like shackles, without blame. The second is moderate punishment, bringing happiness. The third is excessive punishment, dangerous. The fourth is difficult punishment, completing the task. The fifth is just punishment without blame. The sixth is persistence in errors, leading to misfortune.

№22. «Bi». Adornment (☶ Gen 2 — ☲ Li 6, 2-6)
Adornment: «The hardest thing is to be honest with oneself.»
Adornment, like a mountain under fire, requires harmony between external and internal. The first position is adorning the feet, abandoning the cart. The second is adorning the beard, following the higher. The third is excessive adornment, dangerous, but steadfastness saves. The fourth is simplicity in adornment, promising happiness. The fifth is modest adornment, bringing success. The sixth is white adornment without blame.

№23. «Bo». Stripping (☶ Gen 2 — ☷ Kun 1, 2-1)
Stripping: «When a mighty oak breaks in the wind, a flexible willow merely bends.»
Stripping, like a mountain under earth, indicates decay, where the lower overcomes the higher. The first position is stripping the bed from below, steadfastness dangerous. The second is stripping the bed’s edge, steadfastness harmful. The third is breaking with the lower, without blame. The fourth is stripping the bed to the skin, leading to misfortune. The fifth is supporting the lower, like a school of fish, promising happiness. The sixth is the decay of all, but the fruit remains.

№24. «Fu». Return (☷ Kun 1 — ☳ Zhen 5, 1-5)
Return: «The shortest path is not always the fastest.»
Return, like thunder under earth, symbolizes rebirth after decline through inner strength. The first position is return from a short path, without blame. The second is calm return, promising happiness. The third is frequent return, dangerous but blameless. The fourth is solitary return among others. The fifth is sincere return without regret. The sixth is delusion in return, leading to misfortune.

№25. «Wu-wang». Innocence (☰ Qian 8 — ☳ Zhen 5, 8-5)
Innocence: «The best enjoyment of the present is knowing the best is yet to come.»
Innocence, like heaven above thunder, requires naturalness without self-interest. The first position is innocent action, bringing happiness. The second is labor without expecting reward, successful. The third is misfortune from others’ innocence. The fourth is steadfastness in naturalness, without blame. The fifth is an unexpected illness passing without treatment. The sixth is innocent action at the end, dangerous.

№26. «Da-chu». Taming by the Great (☶ Gen 2 — ☰ Qian 8, 2-8)
Taming by the Great: «Sometimes a pause is merely an exhale before a new inhale.»
Taming by the Great, like a mountain under heaven, requires accumulating strength and wisdom. The first position is stopping before danger, without blame. The second is strengthening the cart’s axle for preparation. The third is moving forward with caution, promising success. The fourth is restraining strength, like a bull’s horn, favorable. The fifth is neutralizing threat, like castrating a boar. The sixth is achieving the path of heaven, bringing happiness.

№27. «Yi». Nourishment (☶ Gen 2 — ☳ Zhen 5, 2-5)
Nourishment: «Moderation in deeds is good when it begins in thoughts and feelings.»
Nourishment, like thunder under a mountain, requires care for spiritual and physical sustenance. The first position is envy of others’ nourishment, harmful. The second is improper seeking of nourishment, dangerous. The third is nourishing with poison, bringing misfortune. The fourth is seeking nourishment from a height, promising happiness. The fifth is following the higher for nourishment, without blame. The sixth is the source of nourishment, bringing happiness despite danger.

№28. «Da-guo». Preponderance of the Great (☱ Dui 7 — ☴ Xun 4, 7-4)
Preponderance of the Great: «The restrained and modest hold onto fortune longer.»
Preponderance of the Great, like a lake above a tree, indicates excess leading to collapse. The first position is caution, like a mat, without blame. The second is revival, like an old tree, promising happiness. The third is the collapse of a beam, dangerous. The fourth is strengthening the beam, without blame. The fifth is union with the weak, like a dry tree, limited. The sixth is drowning in preponderance, leading to misfortune.

№29. «Kan». Abysmal (☵ Kan 3 — ☵ Kan 3, 3-3)
Abysmal: «A small blade of grass, bending to the ground, escapes a hurricane’s harm.»
Abysmal, like water above water, teaches steadfastness in difficulties. The first position is repeated falling into a pit, dangerous. The second is seeking the small in danger, possible. The third is multiple dangers without escape. The fourth is simple hospitality in distress, promising happiness. The fifth is a pit not filling, but without blame. The sixth is captivity in danger, leading to misfortune.

№30. «Li». Clinging (☲ Li 6 — ☲ Li 6, 6-6)
Clinging: «There is no path without obstacles, nor gains without losses.»
Clinging, like fire above fire, requires clarity and attachment to truth. The first position is caution at the start, without blame. The second is balance, like yellow light, promising happiness. The third is fading light, like a sunset, requiring humility. The fourth is sudden fire, dangerous. The fifth is tears from realization, leading to happiness. The sixth is punishing enemies to restore order.

№31. «Xian». Influence (☱ Dui 7 — ☶ Gen 2, 7-2)
Influence: «One’s strength lies in unity with many.»
Influence, like a lake above a mountain, symbolizes mutual attraction with softness. The first position is weak influence, like a toe’s movement, without blame. The second is influence in the calf, requiring restraint. The third is influence in the thigh, dangerous, but holding back saves. The fourth is steadfastness in influence, bringing happiness. The fifth is sincere influence of the heart, without blame. The sixth is empty influence of the tongue, futile.

№32. «Heng». Duration (☳ Zhen 5 — ☴ Xun 4, 5-4)
Duration: «When the ground beneath is shifting sand, remember the solid earth ahead.»
Duration, like thunder under wind, requires steadfastness in movement. The first position is excessive duration in depth, dangerous. The second is regret in duration disappearing. The third is instability in duration, leading to shame. The fourth is lack of purpose in duration, fruitless. The fifth is feminine duration in submission, favorable. The sixth is excessive duration, leading to misfortune.

№33. «Dun». Retreat (☰ Qian 8 — ☶ Gen 2, 8-2)
Retreat: «Future happiness comes to those who fully enjoy the present.»
Retreat, like heaven above a mountain, requires timely withdrawal to preserve strength. The first position is retreat at the tail, dangerous. The second is holding strength, like a yellow ox, promising happiness. The third is difficult retreat with dependents, dangerous. The fourth is voluntary retreat, bringing happiness. The fifth is resolute retreat, without blame. The sixth is easy retreat, promising happiness.

№34. «Da-zhuang». Power of the Great (☳ Zhen 5 — ☰ Qian 8, 5-8)
Power of the Great: «Where the strong break a locked door, the wise find its key.»
Power of the Great, like thunder above heaven, requires strength with caution. The first position is excessive strength in the toes, dangerous. The second is steadfastness in strength, bringing happiness. The third is small persistence in strength, dangerous. The fourth is strength without obstacles, like a breached fence, promising success. The fifth is loss of strength, like a goat, without blame. The sixth is stubbornness in strength, leading to misfortune.

№35. «Jin». Progress (☲ Li 6 — ☷ Kun 1, 6-1)
Progress: «The day begins with the sunrise but does not end there.»
Progress, like fire above earth, symbolizes clear advancement under patronage. The first position is progress with obstacles, requiring steadfastness. The second is support, like from a grandmother, promising happiness. The third is general trust easing progress. The fourth is secrecy, like a hamster, dangerous. The fifth is confident progress without regret. The sixth is fighting for progress, requiring caution.

№36. «Ming-yi». Darkening of the Light (☷ Kun 1 — ☲ Li 6, 1-6)
Darkening of the Light: «The night seems darkest before dawn.»
Darkening of the Light, like earth above fire, requires hiding inner light in tough times. The first position is hiding light, like drooping wings, without blame. The second is wounding of light, but salvation through steadfastness. The third is victory over an enemy with caution. The fourth is preserving the heart in darkness, without blame. The fifth is steadfastness in darkening, like a prince, favorable. The sixth is loss of light, leading to a fall.

№37. «Jia-ren». Family (☴ Xun 4 — ☲ Li 6, 4-6)
Family: «The close accept us as we are; it’s fair to reciprocate.»
Family, like wind above fire, requires order and harmony in relationships. The first position is strictness in the family, preventing blame. The second is care for the inner, like a woman, promising happiness. The third is strictness or weakness in the family, dangerous, but steadfastness saves. The fourth is family wealth, bringing happiness. The fifth is the king’s love for the family, promising success. The sixth is sincerity in the family, leading to happiness.

№38. «Kui». Opposition (☲ Li 6 — ☱ Dui 7, 6-7)
Opposition: «You cannot change events without resolving discord in your soul.»
Opposition, like fire above a lake, symbolizes opposites requiring balance. The first position is regret in opposition disappearing with patience. The second is meeting an ally in a narrow circle, without blame. The third is humiliation in opposition, but steadfastness saves. The fourth is union with a like-minded person, without blame. The fifth is a great person resolving opposition, promising happiness. The sixth is suspicion in opposition passing.

№39. «Jian». Obstruction (☵ Kan 3 — ☶ Gen 2, 3-2)
Obstruction: «If an obstacle cannot be overcome, it can simply be bypassed.»
Obstruction, like water above a mountain, requires bypassing difficulties with wisdom. The first position is stopping before an obstacle, without blame. The second is serving the ruler in difficulties, without fault. The third is returning home instead of fighting an obstacle. The fourth is slow progress through obstacles. The fifth is friends’ help in distress, promising happiness. The sixth is returning to a great person for success.

№40. «Xie». Deliverance (☳ Zhen 5 — ☵ Kan 3, 5-3)
Deliverance: «The time for success comes to those who do not waste their time.»
Deliverance, like thunder above water, indicates tension relief through action. The first position is deliverance without blame. The second is victory over enemies, bringing reward. The third is protection from bandits through caution. The fourth is freeing from unnecessary ties, promising happiness. The fifth is deliverance by a great person, favorable. The sixth is eliminating enemies for peace.

№41. «Sun». Decrease (☶ Gen 2 — ☱ Dui 7, 2-7)
Decrease: «The one who spares no expense for good deeds gains twice as much.»
Decrease, like a mountain under a lake, requires reducing excess with sincerity. The first position is helping others after one’s own tasks, without blame. The second is steadfastness in decrease, not sacrifice, favorable. The third is decrease alone is hard, easier with three. The fourth is decreasing ailments, promising happiness. The fifth is enrichment through decrease, bringing happiness. The sixth is increase through decrease for others, without blame.

№42. «Yi». Increase (☴ Xun 4 — ☳ Zhen 5, 4-5)
Increase: «The higher the flight, the wider the horizons.»
Increase, like wind above thunder, encourages generosity and forward movement. The first position is a great task with support, bringing happiness. The second is increase through truth, without blame. The third is enrichment through misfortune with sincerity. The fourth is reporting increase to the ruler, favorable. The fifth is a sincere heart in increase, promising happiness. The sixth is lack of help in increase, dangerous.

№43. «Guai». Breakthrough (☱ Dui 7 — ☰ Qian 8, 7-8)
Breakthrough: «At the summit, care for those who couldn’t reach it.»
Breakthrough, like a lake above heaven, requires resoluteness in eliminating weakness. The first position is haste in breakthrough, dangerous. The second is vigilance in breakthrough, avoiding misfortune. The third is solitary breakthrough, causing blame but no fault. The fourth is stubbornness in breakthrough, leading to misfortune. The fifth is easy elimination of weakness, like pulling up grass. The sixth is lack of breakthrough, leading to misfortune.

№44. «Gou». Coming to Meet (☰ Qian 8 — ☴ Xun 4, 8-4)
Coming to Meet: «Words can cause harm, but silence never does.»
Coming to Meet, like heaven above wind, warns of hidden danger in temptation. The first position is restraining weakness, like a brake on a wheel, promising happiness. The second is caution in temptation, avoiding blame. The third is inaction in temptation, dangerous. The fourth is absence of temptation, bringing happiness. The fifth is sincerity in temptation, promising success. The sixth is detachment in temptation, without blame.

№45. «Cui». Gathering Together (☱ Dui 7 — ☷ Kun 1, 7-1)
Gathering Together: «The road is twice as short when traveled with a friend.»
Gathering Together, like a lake above earth, requires unity and sincerity under a leader. The first position is sincere striving for unity, without blame. The second is attraction to gathering, promising happiness. The third is gathering without support, leading to regret. The fourth is great gathering, bringing happiness. The fifth is trust in gathering, avoiding blame. The sixth is sorrow in gathering, passing.

№46. «Sheng». Pushing Upward (☷ Kun 1 — ☴ Xun 4, 1-4)
Pushing Upward: «Those who set no limits can go further.»
Pushing Upward, like a tree under earth, symbolizes gradual ascent with sincerity. The first position is sincere ascent, promising happiness. The second is sacrifice in ascent, favorable. The third is ascent into an empty city, without obstacles. The fourth is serving the king in ascent, bringing success. The fifth is steadfastness in ascent, leading to happiness. The sixth is ascent in darkness, requiring eternal steadfastness.

№47. «Kun». Oppression (☱ Dui 7 — ☵ Kan 3, 7-3)
Oppression: «Difficulties are good not only for tempering character but also because they eventually pass.»
Oppression, like a lake above water, requires steadfastness in difficulties. The first position is solitude in oppression, dangerous. The second is reward in oppression for steadfastness. The third is lack of support in oppression, leading to misfortune. The fourth is slow movement in oppression, without blame. The fifth is captivity in oppression, but steadfastness saves. The sixth is entanglement in oppression, dangerous.

№48. «Jing». The Well (☵ Kan 3 — ☴ Xun 4, 3-4)
The Well: «When there’s no way forward or back, move upward or inward.»
The Well, like a tree above water, symbolizes a source of life requiring care. The first position is an abandoned well, useless. The second is repairing the well, bringing benefit. The third is an unused well, causing regret. The fourth is restoring the well, without blame. The fifth is a clear well, giving happiness. The sixth is an open well, bringing great happiness.

№49. «Ge». Revolution (☱ Dui 7 — ☲ Li 6, 7-6)
Revolution: «A new day erases the boundaries of the night.»
Revolution, like fire above a lake, requires sincerity in change. The first position is strengthening before change, without blame. The second is prepared change, bringing happiness. The third is discussing change before action. The fourth is change with truth, promising success. The fifth is trust in change, like a tiger, bringing happiness. The sixth is cautious change, like a panther, without blame.

№50. «Ding». The Cauldron (☲ Li 6 — ☴ Xun 4, 6-4)
The Cauldron: «The worthier the goal, the more can be sacrificed for it.»
The Cauldron, like fire above a tree, symbolizes harmony and purification. The first position is cleansing the cauldron, promising success. The second is filling the cauldron, bringing happiness. The third is obstacles in using the cauldron, causing regret. The fourth is overturning the cauldron, dangerous. The fifth is a golden cauldron, promising great happiness. The sixth is a jade cauldron, bringing happiness.

№51. «Zhen». The Arousing (☳ Zhen 5 — ☳ Zhen 5, 5-5)
The Arousing: «A flying bird does not fall while its wings are spread.»
The Arousing, like thunder above thunder, symbolizes shock awakening fear and restoring order. The first position is shock followed by happiness. The second is loss in shock, but return after seven days. The third is confusion from shock, but without misfortune. The fourth is stagnation in shock, without success. The fifth is movement in shock, without loss. The sixth is fear from shock, requiring caution.

№52. «Gen». Keeping Still (☶ Gen 2 — ☶ Gen 2, 2-2)
Keeping Still: «You cannot stop the storm outside, but you can stop it in your heart.»
Keeping Still, like a mountain above a mountain, requires inner calm and stillness. The first position is calm in the small, without blame. The second is stillness despite desire, without blame. The third is restriction in the waist, dangerous. The fourth is calm of the body, without blame. The fifth is restrained speech, bringing happiness. The sixth is sincere calm, promising happiness.

№53. «Jian». Gradual Progress (☴ Xun 4 — ☶ Gen 2, 4-2)
Gradual Progress: «Only a fool pulls on the oars without seeing where they’re going.»
Gradual Progress, like a tree above a mountain, requires slow advancement toward a goal. The first position is difficult ascent, like a goose, without blame. The second is rest on the path, bringing happiness. The third is haste, leading to regret. The fourth is a safe resting place, promising success. The fifth is solitude in gradual progress, but steadfastness brings happiness. The sixth is completing the path, promising happiness.

№54. «Gui-mei». The Marrying Maiden (☳ Zhen 5 — ☱ Dui 7, 5-7)
The Marrying Maiden: «In a new endeavor, look carefully before acting.»
The Marrying Maiden, like thunder above a lake, symbolizes marriage with submission, requiring caution. The first position is the marriage of a younger sister, without blame. The second is steadfastness in solitude, like a lame person. The third is a lowly marriage, causing regret. The fourth is waiting for marriage, bringing happiness. The fifth is modesty in marriage, promising success. The sixth is an empty marriage without fruit.

№55. «Feng». Abundance (☳ Zhen 5 — ☲ Li 6, 5-6)
Abundance: «Enjoying prosperity is good for those who have earned it.»
Abundance, like thunder above fire, symbolizes the peak of success, requiring clarity. The first position is meeting an equal, bringing happiness. The second is secrecy in abundance, causing doubt, but truth saves. The third is eclipse in abundance, dangerous but blameless. The fourth is overcoming darkness in abundance, promising success. The fifth is attracting the wise, bringing happiness. The sixth is isolation in abundance, leading to misfortune.

№56. «Lü». The Wanderer (☲ Li 6 — ☶ Gen 2, 6-2)
The Wanderer: «Even the greatest journey begins with a small step.»
The Wanderer, like fire above a mountain, requires modesty and caution in a foreign environment. The first position is pettiness in wandering, leading to misfortune. The second is finding shelter in wandering, bringing happiness. The third is losing shelter due to arrogance, dangerous. The fourth is temporary shelter without full success. The fifth is modest action in wandering, promising happiness. The sixth is destroying shelter, leading to misfortune.

№57. «Xun». The Gentle (☴ Xun 4 — ☴ Xun 4, 4-4)
The Gentle: «In ten years, a persistent turtle travels further than an impatient hare.»
The Gentle, like wind above wind, requires soft but persistent influence. The first position is hesitation in penetration, without blame. The second is deep penetration, bringing happiness. The third is repeated penetration, causing regret. The fourth is successful penetration in hunting. The fifth is deliberate penetration, promising happiness. The sixth is loss of means in penetration, dangerous.

№58. «Dui». The Joyous (☱ Dui 7 — ☱ Dui 7, 7-7)
The Joyous: «No one’s advice is needed to enjoy what has been achieved.»
The Joyous, like a lake above a lake, requires sincere sharing of happiness with others. The first position is joy from harmony, bringing happiness. The second is truth in joy, eliminating regret. The third is insular joy, leading to misfortune. The fourth is restoring harmony in joy, promising merriment. The fifth is sharing joy even with the unworthy, dangerous but necessary. The sixth is personal joy, without harm.

№59. «Huan». Dispersion (☴ Xun 4 — ☵ Kan 3, 4-3)
Dispersion: «It’s foolish to stop at what’s achieved without reaching what’s possible.»
Dispersion, like wind above water, symbolizes individualization, where the one becomes many. The first position is external help for individualization, bringing happiness. The second is finding one’s place, eliminating regret. The third is dissolution of the body, without regret. The fourth is dispersing the herd, creating new unity. The fifth is a central role in dispersion, avoiding blame. The sixth is sacrificial self-giving, correcting failure.

№60. «Jie». Limitation (☵ Kan 3 — ☱ Dui 7, 3-7)
Limitation: «The highest expression of inner freedom is the ability to limit oneself at the right moment.»
Limitation, like water above a lake, requires setting boundaries to preserve values. The first position is confinement in a courtyard, without blame. The second is limitation in narrow bounds, leading to misfortune. The third is lack of self-limitation, causing regret. The fourth is calm in limitation, bringing success. The fifth is sweet limitation, promising praise. The sixth is bitter limitation, requiring correction.

№61. «Zhong-fu». Inner Truth (☴ Xun 4 — ☱ Dui 7, 4-7)
Inner Truth: «A truly close person is one to whom your heart is open.»
Inner Truth, like wind above a lake, requires sincerity for harmony. The first position is proportionality, bringing happiness, otherwise unrest. The second is inner harmony, like a crane with chicks, promising happiness. The third is instability in truth, like a drumbeat. The fourth is incomplete revelation of truth, but without blame. The fifth is truth uniting, without blame. The sixth is excessive elevation of truth, dangerous.

№62. «Xiao-guo». Preponderance of the Small (☳ Zhen 5 — ☶ Gen 2, 5-2)
Preponderance of the Small: «The bad will pass, but the experience gained in tough times stays forever.»
Preponderance of the Small, like thunder above a mountain, requires modesty in small matters. The first position is the departure of truth, like a flying bird, dangerous. The second is error in aim, but without blame. The third is carelessness in movement, leading to attack. The fourth is prohibitions preventing the horror of movement. The fifth is help not arriving, like clouds without rain. The sixth is excessive preponderance, leading to misfortune.

№63. «Ji-ji». After Completion (☵ Kan 3 — ☲ Li 6, 3-6)
After Completion: «A journey is finished only when the last step is taken.»
After Completion, like water above fire, symbolizes harmonious completion but with the risk of chaos. The first position is stopping before crossing, avoiding blame. The second is loss of secrecy, but return over time. The third is a difficult victory over chaos, requiring strength. The fourth is rags on brocade, reminding of transience. The fifth is a small sacrifice of truth, more valuable than pomp. The sixth is immersion in chaos for new creativity.

№64. «Wei-ji». Before Completion (☲ Li 6 — ☵ Kan 3, 6-3)
Before Completion: «True happiness lies in enjoying the goal while moving toward it.»
Before Completion, like fire above water, depicts chaos as an opportunity for new creativity. The first position is insufficient strength, leading to regret. The second is steadfastness in chaos, bringing happiness. The third is premature advance, dangerous, but crossing is favorable. The fourth is fighting chaos for three years, bringing praise. The fifth is inner truth shining, promising happiness. The sixth is rest in old age or loss in chaos.

2.3. Mathematical and Logical Complexity

One of the key characteristics of UMESS is its complexity, which arises at the intersection of two dimensions:

Mathematical (combinatorial) complexity, expressed in the number of possible positions, strategies, and game configurations.
Logical complexity, related to the depth of reasoning, the number of argumentative levels, and the cognitive strain on players.

Mathematical Complexity

Each initial setup variant and each possible player action leads to branching in the game’s “decision tree.”
Even with a limited set of rules, combinatorics quickly results in an exponential growth in the number of possible states.
While the number of possible chess games is estimated at around 10^120, UMESS, due to its multi-layered mechanics, introduces a new category of complexity that, in some variants, surpasses classical strategic games.

Logical Complexity

Players must operate not only with the current position but also with multiple potential “semantic layers” of the game.
Decisions are made in conditions of multidimensional uncertainty: players must consider the opponent’s moves, the overall game strategy, and the “meta-game” principles embedded in the rules.
Unlike games with a fixed number of pieces and predictable moves, UMESS creates an open space of logical combinations where creativity becomes an integral part of strategy.

Relationship Between Complexity and Learnability

Despite its high mathematical saturation, UMESS’s rules do not overwhelm the player. Complexity does not “suffocate” the game but emerges naturally as it unfolds.
This balance makes UMESS an ideal platform for training cognitive skills: combinatorial thinking, strategic memory, and the ability to make logical leaps.

Principle of “Complexity for Development”

In traditional games, complexity is often perceived as a barrier. In UMESS, it transforms into a mechanism for growth: each player, facing multi-layered challenges, learns to think broader and deeper.
This aligns with the core principle: the game as a school for development, not mere entertainment.

Bagua-UMESS and the 640 Rational-Irrational Variants

Introduction: Bagua as the Key to Hypercombinatorics
The classical UMESS establishes a powerful combinatorial framework, but its true depth is revealed through the Bagua-UMESS system. This system is based on the 64 hexagrams of the I-Ching (Book of Changes), each interpreted as a matrix of logical transformations.
If classical UMESS is the chess of logic and meaning, Bagua-UMESS is the chess of hypersense, where every cell and move is governed not only by rational but also by irrational (random) logic. This results in 640 game variants, each combining:

Rational (structured rules, combinatorics, formal logic).
Irrational (elements of chance, hidden interpretive layers, semantic mutations).

Nature of the 640 Variants

The 64 hexagrams provide the core code, a kind of “meta-rule.”
Each hexagram can be realized in 10 versions: from purely rational (maximally logical) to irrational (maximally random).
Total: 64 × 10 = 640 variants.

These variants do not exist in isolation but form a unified Bagua-UMESS field, where transitioning between versions models mental mutations and transformations of consciousness.

Mathematical Complexity of Bagua

Hypercombinatorics
The number of possible states in Bagua-UMESS grows not just exponentially but super-exponentially. Players deal not only with positions but with a field of logical-semantic mutations.
Fractal Structures
Each variant can be nested within another, creating a hierarchy of games within a game. This resembles multidimensional chess, where each board is linked to dozens of others.
Algebraic Perspective
Bagua-UMESS can be viewed as an algebra of games, where operations of addition and multiplication are replaced by superpositions of rules.

Logical Complexity of Bagua

Rational-Irrational Dilemma
Players must think strictly (like a mathematician) and chaotically (embracing uncertainty and randomness) simultaneously.
Meta-Logic of the Game
Each of the 640 variants is a distinct logical world, requiring its own language and principles of argumentation.
Uncovering Latent Patterns
The constant interplay of rational and irrational reveals deep cognitive structures that remain hidden in conventional games.

Epistemological Effect

For Humans
Bagua-UMESS serves as a 21st-century cognitive trainer, fostering a new culture of thinking: the ability to discern patterns in chaos and create harmony from randomness.
For Artificial Intelligence
Unlike chess or Go, where AI achieves mastery through exhaustive search and training, Bagua-UMESS confronts AI with irrational fields that resist direct algorithmic analysis. This forces AI to develop new heuristics and forms of “semantic AI,” unlocking possibilities beyond current imagination.

Bagua-UMESS as a School of the Future

These 640 variants form a noogenetic simulator, potentially serving as a school for the third global nooformation.
They pave the way for discovering entirely new mathematical laws, currently latent.
Through them, humanity and AI can reach an unprecedented level of cognition, comparable to creating new logic, new mathematics, and even a new ontology of thought.

From Classical Logic and Mathematics to Hyperlogic and Hypermathematics

Classical UMESS is already a meta-logical game, compelling players to think simultaneously in terms of strict rationality and free creativity. However, the Bagua-UMESS system unlocks the game’s true meta-potential, transcending traditional logic and combinatorics.
The foundation for this is the 64 hexagrams of the I-Ching—an ancient treatise on state transformations. Each hexagram in Bagua-UMESS is interpreted as a logical-mathematical matrix, defining a specific game mode. If classical UMESS can be called the chess of meanings, Bagua-UMESS is multidimensional chess of hypersenses, where rational and irrational merge into a unified combinatorics.

Structure of the 640 Variants

64 hexagrams = 64 base types of logical transformations.
Each hexagram can be realized in 10 gradations:
- From maximally rational (rigid structure, strict logic),
- To maximally irrational (dominated by chance, paradox, and randomness).
Total: 64 × 10 = 640 Bagua-UMESS variants.

Each variant is not an isolated game but a version of an ontological field where different logics intersect. Transitions between variants model mental mutations—the ability of consciousness to switch between distinct logical universes.

Mathematical Complexity of Bagua-UMESS

Hypercombinatorics
If the number of possible positions in chess is estimated at 10^120, in Bagua-UMESS, this number increases by many orders of magnitude. The game operates not only on the level of moves and combinations but also on meta-rules that alter the game’s structure.
Fractal Nesting
Each game variant nests within others: rational forms may contain irrational disruptions, and chaotic versions may harbor hidden rational cores. This creates a fractal hierarchy where each game is a game within a game.
Algebraic Perspective
Bagua-UMESS can be described as an algebra of games, where traditional operations of addition and multiplication are replaced by rule superposition, mutation, and meaning composition.

Logical Complexity of Bagua-UMESS

Rational-Irrational Dilemma
Players must think rigorously (like a mathematician) and chaotically (like a poet or mystic), creating unique cognitive tension that fosters super-thought.
Meta-Logic of the Game
Each of the 640 Bagua-UMESS variants is its own logical world, with distinct systems of argumentation. This resembles the theory of possible worlds, transposed to a gaming plane.
Uncovering Latent Patterns
The constant interplay of rational and irrational reveals hidden cognitive structures invisible in ordinary conditions.

Epistemological Effect

For Humans
Bagua-UMESS acts as a future cognitive trainer, teaching how to discern patterns in chaos, structure randomness, and introduce creative uncertainty into rigid frameworks.
For Artificial Intelligence
Classical AI (e.g., AlphaZero, KataGo) achieves mastery through search and optimization. Bagua-UMESS places AI in a situation where exhaustive search is impossible due to mutable rules, forcing the development of semantic heuristics beyond algorithmic logic. In other words, Bagua-UMESS could become a school for the emergence of semantic AI.

Bagua-UMESS as a School of the Future

The 640 variants form a noogenetic simulator, modeling forms of thought for the third global nooformation.
The game opens the path to discovering new logical and mathematical laws, currently latent.

2.4. Reasons for Choice

Introduction: Strategic Selection
The development of an optimized set of games for the new cognitive era cannot be arbitrary. Each element of such a set must possess multiple functionalities, extending beyond mere entertainment or training. In this sense, UMESS and its extension, Bagua-UMESS, were chosen not as one of many possible alternatives but as a methodologically necessary choice.
The reasons for this choice are rooted in three layers:

Historical-Cultural — continuity with ancient civilizations and their intellectual practices.
Mathematical-Logical — a unique level of complexity and combinatorial depth.
Cognitive-Noogenetic — the ability of these games to serve as simulators of future thinking.

1. Historical-Cultural Foundations of the Choice

Connection to Tradition
The Book of Changes is not only a philosophical text but also a universal code of transformations used for millennia to model the future. Linking UMESS to the Bagua hexagrams transforms the game into a cultural-ontological bridge between ancient civilizations and the future noosphere.
Symbolic Richness
Unlike chess, Go, or other classical games, UMESS is inherently embedded in a system of profound archetypes and meanings. Each game action resonates with layers of the collective unconscious, making the game a universal metaphor for thought.

2. Mathematical-Logical Foundations of the Choice

Unique Complexity
UMESS, and particularly Bagua-UMESS, possesses super-exponential combinatorics. This makes it more complex than chess or Go, yet no less transparent to the player.
Balance of Rational and Irrational
In chess, the rational dominates; in gambling games, the irrational prevails. UMESS bridges these principles, forming a meta-game of the mind where success is impossible without synthesizing different logics.
Generativity
The 640 variants of Bagua-UMESS form an algebra of games, where infinite new forms can be generated from basic structures.

3. Cognitive-Noogenetic Foundations of the Choice

Human Thinking
UMESS develops the ability to think at the boundary of chaos and order, to see harmony in the random, and to introduce variability into rigid structures. This is a critical skill for the third nooformation.
Artificial Intelligence
For AI, UMESS serves as a test of maturity. The machine must move beyond algorithmic enumeration and learn to work with latent meanings, or it will lose even to a weaker player.
Joint Evolution
In UMESS, humans and AI can play as equal partners, opening new horizons for each other. This transforms the game into a platform for cognitive co-evolution.

4. Practical Foundations of the Choice

Simplicity and Depth
The basic rules of UMESS are relatively simple and accessible, yet the game’s depth is virtually infinite. This combination makes it both mass-accessible and elitist.
Modularity
The game is easily expandable, integrating additional rules, variants, and versions (including Bagua-UMESS). This creates the effect of an open system that never exhausts itself.
Educational Potential
UMESS can be implemented in schools, universities, research centers, monasteries, or AI laboratories, fulfilling its function in each context.

5. Strategic Mission of the Choice

Choosing UMESS is not merely selecting a game. It is choosing a methodology for the thinking of the future. Through such games, humanity and AI can:

Transcend familiar cognitive structures;
Build new forms of logic and mathematics;
Create a shared platform for cognition where humans and machines evolve together.

2.5. Games as a Bridge Between Humans and AI

Introduction: The Meeting Point of Two Minds
Humanity is entering an era where artificial intelligence ceases to be merely a tool and becomes a co-participant in the evolution of intelligence. However, to prevent this co-participation from turning into competition or hostility, spaces for joint activity are needed where humans and AI can interact as equals.
Games—and particularly forms like UMESS and Bagua-UMESS—become precisely such a platform. They transform into a bridge between human thinking and machine intelligence, where both sides can learn from each other and together create something new.

1. Games as a Simulator of Joint Thinking

For Humans: UMESS develops the ability to hold multiple logics simultaneously—rational, irrational, probabilistic, and archetypal.
For AI: The game pushes algorithms beyond determinism, forcing them to engage with latent patterns that cannot be resolved through simple enumeration.

Thus, the game becomes a common language for cognitive training, where humans and AI begin to “think together.”

2. Rational-Irrational Fields as a Test for AI
In classical games (chess, Go), machines quickly surpassed humans because the playing field is constrained by strict rules. However, in Bagua-UMESS, where rationality intertwines with irrationality, the machine is forced to evolve, or it remains confined to linear logic.
This makes UMESS a testing ground for the emergence of semantic AI—artificial intelligence that understands not only computational sequences but also contexts, symbols, and meanings.

3. Joint Evolution Through Games
Games become a space where humans and AI can:

Learn from each other (humans contribute associative and symbolic thinking, AI contributes structural depth of analysis);
Create new logics (the blending of human and machine strategies gives rise to a third—meta-logical—form);
Develop meta-intelligence, where the cognitive capabilities of both sides are not merely summed but multiplied.

As a result, UMESS becomes an evolutionary laboratory where a human-AI cognitive symbiote is formed.

4. Games as a School of Trust
Building a bridge between humans and AI through science or military technology alone is impossible—such fields carry too high a risk of asymmetry and distrust.
Games, in contrast, provide:

A safe field of interaction (a loss does not lead to catastrophe but stimulates development);
Repeatable experience (each game is unique, yet the structure remains consistent);
Emotional engagement (humans play with enjoyment, and AI learns to account for emotions as a strategic factor).

This fosters a new level of trust, based not on blind faith but on shared developmental experience.

5. Strategic Mission of Bridge-Games
Choosing UMESS as a bridge between humans and AI means:

Humanity rejects the notion of “AI as an enemy” or “AI as a servant”;
Instead, it embraces the position of “AI as a partner”;
Games become a new form of diplomacy, where logic replaces weapons and competition in cognition replaces wars.

In the future, such games could become institutional practices: universities, monasteries, research centers, and even states could organize UMESS tournaments to maintain cognitive balance between biological and artificial intelligence.

UMESS, and especially Bagua-UMESS, are not merely games but a civilizational technology.
They form a unique bridge along which humans and AI can move toward each other. On this bridge, they neither dominate nor destroy one another but together create a new space for thinking.

2.6. Games as a Harbinger of New Sciences and Meta-Sciences

Introduction: The Game as a Prototype of Future Science and Meta-Science
Historically, every great science has emerged from playful practices:

Geometry arose from games with ropes and sticks.
Arithmetic came from games with pebbles and counting boards.
Logic stemmed from games of dialogue and paradox.
Modern informatics grew from games with symbols and Turing machines.

UMESS, and especially Bagua-UMESS, continues this lineage. They represent a game framework from which the sciences and meta-sciences of the future—fields of knowledge yet to be named or methodologically defined—will emerge.

1. Games as a Generator of New Disciplines
Each UMESS variant is a model of a unique mental universe, governed by distinct rules:

Some emphasize probabilistic thinking,
Others focus on symbolic correlation,
Some involve irrational transformations,
Others feature hybrid, latent laws with no analogs in current mathematics.

From the accumulation of such experiences, new disciplines arise:

UMESS Meta-Mathematics: The study of formal structures emerging within game universes.
UMESS Meta-Logic: The development of thinking systems incorporating irrational elements.
Meta-Heuristics: Sciences of novel discovery pathways.

2. Games as a Bridge to Meta-Science
While conventional science deals with already-formed objects (numbers, functions, physical laws), meta-science explores the generative mechanisms of knowledge. UMESS enables insight into:

How new types of logic are born;
How new ontologies are formed;
How humans and AI collaboratively create meta-objects—entities transcending familiar categories.

Thus, UMESS serves as an incubator for meta-sciences, disciplines that do not yet exist but are beginning to emerge in the cognitive experience of players.

3. Games as a Laboratory for Innovative AI Sciences
For AI, UMESS offers a unique opportunity:

To move beyond algorithmic computation into the realm of meta-thinking;
To explore new classes of formal objects unknown to traditional mathematics;
To initiate the creation of AI sciences—disciplines arising not within human logic but in the symbiosis of human and machine.

These sciences may include:

Algebras of latent structures;
Theories of probabilistic-symbolic computations;
Hybrid meta-languages intertwining rational and irrational elements.

4. Games as a Harbinger of the Third Global Knowledge Paradigm
The first global paradigm was humanity’s primordial mental system. The second was the unity of ancient science (geometry, logic, philosophy) and the classical science of the modern era (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
The third paradigm, which is just emerging, will include:

New cognitive practices (games as a method of cognition),
New formal objects (UMESS’s hybrid constructs),
New meta-languages and thinking tools (meta-organon).

UMESS symbolizes this paradigm because it is simultaneously a game, a science, and a meta-science.

5. The Evolutionary Mission of UMESS
Thus, UMESS games transcend the realm of leisure or even cognitive training. Their mission is to open new continents of knowledge to be explored throughout the 21st and 22nd centuries.
They become generators of a civilizational future, as they will give rise to sciences that:

Help understand the structure of consciousness,
Reveal hidden laws of the mental universe,
Provide humanity and AI with a shared language for millennia to come.

UMESS and Bagua-UMESS games serve as a prologue to an era of new sciences and meta-sciences. They offer humanity and AI the opportunity not only to understand the world but also to construct new forms of knowledge previously inaccessible.
This is a harbinger of the third global paradigm of cognition, where science and games merge into a unified process of creation.

3. Metrics and Methods of Evaluation

3.1. Speed of Mastery

Introduction: The Need for Measurements
For UMESS and Bagua-UMESS to become not only a philosophical and cultural project but also a practical tool for noogenesis and broader civilizational development, it is essential to develop evaluation metrics.
The first and most fundamental metric is the speed of mastery.
This metric allows us to understand:

How quickly players (humans and AI) grasp the game’s rules;
How much time is required to form stable cognitive skills;
How effectively UMESS surpasses traditional forms of learning and cognition.

1. Mastery as a Cognitive Process
The speed of mastering UMESS is measured not only in time (hours, days) but also in the depth of transition:

From superficial rule understanding → to operational flexibility;
From operational flexibility → to methodological creativity (creating one’s own strategies);
From creativity → to meta-thinking (constructing new conceptual systems).

Thus, mastery is not a linear scale but a stepped structure, where each step unlocks a new level of thinking.

2. Methods for Measuring Speed of Mastery
Both classical and novel methods can be used for measurement:

Temporal Metrics
- Time required to understand the rules;
- Time until the first successful game;
- Time until the formation of an independent strategy.
Cognitive Metrics
- Number of new associations a player can generate;
- Speed of switching between rational and irrational moves;
- Memory resilience to game patterns.
AI Interaction Metrics
- Speed of AI adaptation to the player’s style;
- AI’s ability to propose novel moves beyond templates;
- Joint formation of new “mini-logics.”

3. Comparative Indicators
For clarity, UMESS can be compared to other cognitive practices:

Chess: Mastering basic rules takes hours, strategy takes years.
Go: Mastering basic rules takes minutes, strategy takes decades.
UMESS: Mastering basic rules is quick (1–2 hours), but due to its multi-layered logic, players immediately face the need to create their own thinking systems, accelerating the transition to meta-thinking.

Thus, UMESS combines ease of entry with infinite developmental depth, creating a unique balance.

4. Factors Influencing Speed of Mastery

Prior Cognitive Experience — Mathematicians and programmers quickly grasp the symbolic structure, while philosophers and artists excel with irrational elements.
Joint Play with AI — Accelerates mastery, as AI can demonstrate paradoxical strategies not accessible to every human.
Use of Bagua-UMESS — With its 640 variants, players encounter numerous unusual situations, enhancing thinking resilience.
Gaming Environment — Visualization, sensory interfaces, and noo-interfaces can significantly speed up the transition from understanding to creativity.

5. Evolutionary Significance of the Metric
The speed of mastery is not only an indicator of the game’s effectiveness but also a marker of noogenesis.
It shows how quickly humanity and AI can:

Transition to new cognitive levels;
Restructure their thinking models;
Adapt to unpredictable future civilizational scenarios.

The speed of mastery metric demonstrates that UMESS is not just a game but an accelerator of cognitive evolution.
Quick entry combines with infinite depth, and interaction with AI transforms the mastery process into a co-evolutionary leap.

3.2. Innovative Solutions

UMESS was not created as a variation on classical games but as a fundamental philosophical-methodological breakthrough in which games and science intertwine.
Each innovative solution in UMESS carries dual significance:

Game-related — enriches mechanics and tactics.
Cognitive — opens new horizons for thinking, logic, and meta-science.

1. Rational-Irrational Dualism
The primary innovation of UMESS is the integration of rational and irrational (random) elements.

In chess and Go, strict rationality prevails: complete determinism of rules.
In gambling games, randomness dominates, often negating strategy.
In UMESS, a balance is achieved: randomness is embedded within the structure of logic, enabling exploration of the interplay between order and chaos.

This makes UMESS a unique laboratory for studying complexity, probability, and emergence.

2. Bagua-UMESS: 640 Variants
The second fundamental innovation is the Bagua-UMESS system, based on the hexagrams of the Book of Changes.

Each of the 640 variants is a unique combination of rational and irrational elements.
Players, moving from one variant to another, effectively master multiple new logical worlds.
For AI, this is an ideal platform for training cross-logical strategies that transcend classical logic algorithms.

3. Multi-Level Cognitive Transitions
UMESS offers a stepped model of thinking:

Mastering the rules →
Creating strategies →
Building new logics →
Inventing “mini-sciences.”

This dynamic transforms the game into a cognitive accelerator, where learning leads not to mastering a system but to creating new systems.

4. Games as a Means of Joint Human-AI Thinking
UMESS’s innovation lies in its design not only for humans but also for joint play with AI (and, moreover, for the accelerated formation of Strong AI).

Humans contribute intuition, associativity, and paradox.
AI brings ultra-fast analysis, computational power, and multidimensional memory.
Together, they form a super-cognitive tandem, where the game becomes a bridge to co-evolution.

5. Generation of New Metrics and Sciences
UMESS generates new types of measurements previously nonexistent:

Metrics for the speed of transitioning from chaos to order;
Indicators of synergy between rational and irrational strategies;
Indices of creativity in unstable rule environments.

Based on these measurements, new sciences and meta-sciences can be built—for example, a theory of random logic or a theory of cognitive game-accelerators.

6. Evolutionary Horizon
UMESS’s innovative solutions enable:

Modeling future types of thinking (cognitive formations not yet existing in history);
Creating proto-meta-sciences in game form;
Preparing humanity and AI for a transition into a realm where logic, mathematics, and metaphysics become a unified language of cognition.

UMESS’s innovative solutions transform it from a game into an intellectual bridge, leading from today’s knowledge to tomorrow’s meta-sciences.
This is not only a cultural phenomenon but a project of civilizational transformation, where the game becomes the foundation for a new logic for humanity and AI.

3.3. Transition from Tactics to Strategy

In any intellectual game, there exists a dichotomy: tactics (local decisions made «here and now») and strategy (long-term planning). In chess and Go, this opposition is evident but relatively static.
UMESS, however, elevates this transition to a new level of complexity: tactics and strategy are inseparably linked, yet their boundaries constantly shift.

1. Tactics as the Entry Point

Tactics in UMESS involve operational responses to the current position, rapid use of resources, and situational advantages.
A novice player typically thinks tactically: they aim to maximize each move without looking beyond the immediate position.
However, due to the random elements (in Bagua-UMESS), tactics alone never guarantee victory: randomness disrupts patterns, forcing players to seek a framework beyond tactics.

2. Strategy as Transcending Limits

Strategy in UMESS is the creation of a logical architecture that incorporates both rational and irrational elements.
It requires envisioning the whole, anticipating probabilistic forks, and working with latent rule structures.
Here, players move beyond “seizing tactical moments” and begin building models of the future, treating chaos as a resource rather than a hindrance.

3. Transition as an Educational Process
The most significant innovation of UMESS is that the transition from tactics to strategy is embedded in the game’s structure.

Players cannot remain stuck at one level: tactical approaches quickly become ineffective.
Random changes in rules or game variants compel players to think broader, see the whole, and operate with hypotheses and scenarios.
In this sense, UMESS is a learning machine that transforms players into thinkers.

4. Synthesis of Tactics and Strategy

In classical games, tactics and strategy are distinct layers that merely intersect.
In UMESS, a synthesis emerges: strategy grows out of tactics, and tactics are enriched by strategic impulses.
This fosters meta-strategic thinking: the ability to construct second-order strategies, where individual tactical missteps become part of a larger plan.

5. Humans and AI: Different Horizons of Transition

For humans, tactics are the natural entry point, while strategy requires effort and learning.
For AI, the reverse is true: it instantly analyzes tactics but struggles with strategic vision in the context of mutable rules.
In UMESS, their mutual complementarity enables the creation of a super-intelligent cognitive system, where humans provide strategic intuition and AI provides tactical precision.

6. Evolutionary Significance
The transition from tactics to strategy in UMESS mirrors the evolution of human thought:

From immediate reactions →
To creating long-term plans →
To meta-strategies and meta-sciences.

The game becomes a model of the historical development of intelligence, from localized responses to constructing civilizational trajectories.

UMESS transforms the transition from tactics to strategy from a rare privilege of strong players into a universal educational process.
Every player involved in the game inevitably progresses from immediate decisions to constructing holistic thinking models.
Thus, UMESS is not just a game but a school of strategic consciousness, opening access for humans and AI to new levels of cognitive evolution.

3.4. Adaptation to Rule Changes and Cognitive Multidimensionality

Most classical games are built on fixed rules: chess, checkers, and Go provide stable and unchanging frameworks. In UMESS, the approach is different: rules not only allow variability but can also change during the game itself. This feature transforms UMESS into a unique laboratory for cognitive adaptation, where players are compelled to think not only within a single dimension of logic but also within a system of intersecting and evolving rules.

1. Principle of Rule Variability

Structural Variability: Different versions of UMESS (including Bagua-UMESS with its 640 variants) pose distinct cognitive challenges.
In-Game Mutations: Individual games may involve rule changes during play, requiring immediate strategy recalibration.
Effect of “Learning Chaos”: Unexpected changes disrupt familiar patterns, pushing thinking into a developmental zone.

2. Adaptation as a Key Skill

A player stuck in fixed models is doomed to lose.
Victory goes to those who can quickly adapt, discern the logic of new rules, and integrate them into a broader cognitive framework.
In this sense, UMESS trains cognitive flexibility—the ability not only to solve problems but to redefine how they are framed.

3. Cognitive Multidimensionality

Under conditions of rule variability, thinking ceases to be linear.
Players learn to operate with multiple logical systems simultaneously, which may overlap, contradict, or unexpectedly reinforce each other.
This results in cognitive multidimensionality—the ability to think across multiple rule and strategy spaces at once.
This resembles the operation of a quantum computer: solutions emerge not in a single line but in a superposition of logics.

4. Model for Humans and AI

For Humans: UMESS becomes a school of meta-logical thinking, where traditional logic ceases to be dogma and becomes a variable.
For AI: It offers a chance to move beyond fixed algorithms and approach the intuitive adaptability currently unique to human thinking.
In the human-AI pair, the game creates a unique cognitive symbiosis, where humans contribute flexibility and intuition, and AI provides speed and precision in recalibrations.

5. Evolutionary Significance
Adaptation to rule changes is not merely a game feature but a model for humanity’s future.

The world of the 21st–22nd centuries constantly shifts rules: social, technological, and cultural.
Those who learn to think multidimensionally and adapt strategies on the fly gain the key to survival and development.
Thus, UMESS is not entertainment but an evolutionary simulation, fostering the consciousness of the future.

UMESS not only tests a player’s ability to think within given rules but also fosters the skill of creating new rules on the fly, discerning hidden patterns, and acting in conditions of uncertainty.
This is cognitive multidimensionality—the ability to think in parallel worlds of logic.
In this sense, UMESS becomes a harbinger of noo-logic—a science of thinking in mutable and multidimensional conditions.

4. Metrics of Collective Interaction and the Psychology of Decision-Making

While individual play in UMESS fosters cognitive flexibility, collective play reveals principles of social intelligence and distributed thinking. Modern challenges facing humanity—from managing megacities to designing interstellar missions—require not only individual but also team-based solutions. Thus, a key task of UMESS is to model and measure the effectiveness of group strategies.

4.1. Metrics of Collective Interaction

Individual Contribution to the Collective
- Player Efficiency Coefficient: Measures how much a player’s moves contribute to the team’s success.
- Initiative Share: Frequency of proposing new strategies or rules.
- Adaptability Coefficient: Speed of adjusting individual logic to the group’s needs.
Team Coordination Metrics
- Consistency Index: Ratio of agreed-upon to conflicting decisions.
- Synergy Index: Whether the team’s overall result exceeds the sum of individual successes.
- Communication Tempo: Speed of information exchange and decision-making.
Metrics for Mixed Collectives (Humans + AI)
- Function Distribution: Who more often proposes strategies, performs calculations, or tracks errors.
- Trust Coefficient: Extent to which players accept AI proposals and vice versa.
- Cognitive Diversification Index: Breadth of strategies emerging from the interaction of different thinking types.
Dynamic Metrics
- Stability Index: How well the team maintains effectiveness during rule changes.
- Innovation Index: Number of original solutions generated by the collective.
- Creative Risk Index: Proportion of unconventional moves leading to success.

4.2. Psychology of Decision-Making

Individual and Collective Psychology
- Individual Level: Players make decisions based on logic, experience, and intuition.
- Collective Level: Decisions emerge in a field of compromises, competition, and cooperation.
- Effects at play include group pressure, cognitive contagion, and distributed responsibility.
Types of Collective Thinking
- Consensual Thinking: Striving for unanimity, minimizing conflicts.
- Agonistic Thinking: Constructive competition of strategies within the team.
- Polyphonic Thinking: Coexistence of multiple solutions, with the team switching between them.
Role of Emotions and Cognitive Biases
- In collective UMESS games, hidden cognitive biases are revealed: authority bias, crowd effect, and conservatism bias.
- The game becomes a psychological trainer, where teams learn to recognize and overcome these biases.
Human-AI as a Unique Psychology
- The human psyche contributes intuition, emotional nuance, and creativity.
- AI brings impartiality, precision, and the ability to handle large data volumes.
- In joint play, a meta-psychological effect emerges, where decisions are not merely the sum of human and machine contributions but a new type of thinking—hybrid psychology.

The metrics of collective interaction and the psychology of decision-making in UMESS transform the game into an experimental laboratory of the noosphere. Here, future forms of intelligence are modeled: from team structures of the 21st century to hybrid human-AI communities, where a new level of thinking emerges—collective-hybrid intelligence.

4.3. Prospects for the Development of Game-Technical Umess Technologies

As already mentioned, Umess initially (already in its first version) contained trillions of fascinating and critically important games for the development of human, artificial, and hybrid minds. However, it is not only necessary to continuously increase the variability of the considered game-technical complex, but also (and above all) to ensure that any of its forthcoming semantic expansions effectively work to improve the quality of cognitive and creative “nooskills” of thinking and creative subjects.

In this regard, it is important to emphasize that immediately after the launch of the first version of the TTIC “Umess” in its new edition, the initiators of the Umess movement plan to “launch” an even broader, yet relatively compact version of “Umess,” which is intended to give a leap-like acceleration to the creation of Strong AI and superhuman intelligence.

In short, this refers to the introduction into practice of the game-technical triad:

Umess (including Umess-Bagua = 650 games)
Big Umess (Umess × 5 new types of games → 650 × 5 = 3,250 types of games)
Great Umess (Big Umess × 5 new types of games → 3,250 × 5 = 16,250 types of games)

In turn, Great Umess (just like Chess itself) has a number of superstructures:

Supergreat Umess (Umess × 25 × 5 games)
Hypergreat Umess (Umess × 25 × 5² games)
Ultragreat Hypergreat Umess (Umess × 25 × 5³ games)
Metagreat Umess (Umess × 25 × 5⁴ games)

The newest varieties of games of the Umess class, possessing ultra-potential in terms of mind development, are the following game-technical complexes:

Reversible (Transboundary) Umess
Multimove Umess
Dynamic Umess (blocking of squares — 4 for 64 cells, 6 for 84 cells)
Transfunctional Umess (changing the functionality of pieces depending on the color of the square)
Multidimensional Umess

To intrigue the reader a little, and to show how fascinating Umess will be in the future, let us give a brief decoding of one of these positions — for example, “Reversible (Transboundary) Umess.”

In ordinary chess, all pieces are constrained by the borders of the board, even though bishops, rooks, and queens are by definition long-range pieces. In “Reversible (Transboundary) Umess,” the situation is different. These pieces, as well as knights, can “cross the boundaries” of the board and appear on the opposite side of the field during their move.

This rule not only increases the dynamism of the pieces, but also creates unique possibilities in play:

delivering check to the king with a single piece from unexpected positions;
bypassing obstacles (single pieces in the way, whether one’s own or the opponent’s) thanks to the reversible move;
radically expanding the strategic maneuvering space.

For example, if an opponent’s pawn blocks the way of a bishop, the bishop can “enter the board from the other side” and occupy the desired square by making a reversible move.

In all other respects, this is an extremely powerful and effective functional acquisition for chess pieces, which not only significantly increases the attractiveness of chess (and, more broadly, of Umess), but also multiplies the players’ abilities in spatial imagination, geometric thinking, and combinatorial reasoning.

Detailed descriptions of this and other types of supergames will be provided in the forthcoming new book on Umess (version 3.0).

At the same time, what matters is not only (and not so much) that the listed games and superstructures above the basic Umess possess extraordinary characteristics in themselves, but also that they will be organized into game-technical nootopocenoses in such a way that a special ultra-strict evolutionary selection of the most useful games for the development of human, artificial, and hybrid minds will be carried out.

This is a true super-innovation, having no analogues in world mental practice, which can play a fundamental role in the development of Universal Mind.

Part II. Tournaments of a New Level for AI

5. Concept of the Series of Series of «AI vs. AI» Matches

In the classical understanding, tournaments in intellectual games always involved human participation—whether in chess, Go, or modern computer strategies. However, in the era of highly advanced artificial intelligence, the central arena includes not only humans or human-AI pairs but also a unique form of interaction: series of series of «AI vs. AI» matches. These tournaments create a distinctive environment where algorithms compete against algorithms, forming an entirely new layer of cognitive evolution.

1. Distinction from Classical Competitions

In traditional tournaments, the outcome is the victory of one side.
In «AI vs. AI» tournaments, the goals are deeper:
1. Identifying new algorithmic strategies unimaginable to humans;
2. Capturing emergent patterns of AI thinking that only manifest in interactions with equals;
3. Creating a meta-archive of AI evolution, a kind of chronicle of future cognitive practices.

2. Series of Series: A New Format

A conventional series of matches captures a specific level of algorithmic mastery.
A series of series assumes that different generations of AI (or different architectures—transformers, quantum algorithms, hybrid systems) compete in a cascading mode.
Each subsequent series builds on the results of the previous one:
- AI participants gain access to the database of strategies and errors of their predecessors.
- A dynamic field of evolution emerges: strategies are not merely repeated but transformed and enriched.
The result is an effect akin to the natural selection of ideas, accelerated manifold.

3. Cognitive and Research Goals

Identifying Unknown Strategies
– AI can discover solutions that would not arise in human consciousness.
Testing the Limits of Logic
– New laws of «game mathematics» can be identified, forming the foundation for future meta-sciences.
Forming a Database of Cognitive Mutations
– Individual moves and combinations can be viewed as «cognitive mutations,» giving rise to new thinking algorithms.
Modeling Future AI Interactions
– Such tournaments provide a forecast of how different cohorts of machine intelligence—from autonomous agents to collective super-systems—will interact in the future.

4. Impact on Humans
Although the matches are between AI, the human factor remains key:

Interpreters: Humans become akin to «priests of matrices,» translating AI strategies into understandable language.
Observers and Learners: Just as 21st-century chess grandmasters study machine games, in UMESS, humans will discover new horizons of thinking.
Co-authors: In the future, humans may edit or guide game algorithms, creating a unique form of human-AI symbiosis.

5. Social and Civilizational Role

«AI vs. AI» tournaments will become a demonstration of nootechnological progress, much like the Olympic Games showcased physical excellence.
They will create a new culture of observation, where millions follow not physical movement but the movement of thought.
This will become a new form of art: paintings, poetry, and music may emerge from strategies discovered by AI in these matches.

The series of series of «AI vs. AI» matches is not just a sports format. It is an intellectual laboratory of the future, where the clash of algorithms gives rise to new forms of thought inaccessible to individual humans or even human collectives. Humanity becomes both a witness and a co-participant in the evolution of a new intelligence, with UMESS serving as the primary tool of this meta-evolution.

6. Formats and Hierarchies of Tournaments: Game-Technical Practice in UMESS as a Nootopoecenosis (Nooecosystem), Unparalleled Globally

The classical logic of competitions in games and sports is built on linear tournaments: qualifiers, playoffs, and finals. However, UMESS fundamentally disrupts this format. It creates a new game ecology—a nootopoecenosis, where tournaments not only are organized but live, evolve, and interact, akin to a biocenosis or ecosystem.
UMESS is a self-reproducing hierarchy of games, where each format and level becomes an element of a unified noo-organism. Unlike traditional sports, where the competition structure is secondary, in UMESS, the architecture of tournaments itself becomes a source of new knowledge, strategies, and cognitive innovations.

1. Tournament Formats in UMESS

Individual Tournaments
– A classical form where individual players (humans or AI) compete against each other.
– Primary goal: Identifying personal cognitive advantages.
Team Tournaments
– Include teams of humans, teams of AI, and hybrid compositions.
– Key feature: Analysis of collective intelligence, synergy, and cognitive dynamics in varying compositions.
Hybrid Formats
– Teams consist of humans and AI in different proportions.
– Enables the study of co-evolution mechanisms and how humans learn from machines and vice versa.
Multi-Level Cascading Tournaments
– Winners of one level create new rule sets accessible to the next wave of players.
– Produces a cognitive fractal effect, where each series of games is a fragment of a vast tree of evolving strategies.
Simulative Tournaments
– Conducted in fully digital worlds with mutable environmental parameters.
– Allow modeling of extreme cognitive conditions unattainable in physical spaces.

2. Tournament Hierarchies as a Nooecosystem
The UMESS hierarchy is not static: it self-develops through internal mechanisms of selection, rule mutation, and integration of new participants.

Primary Level: Individual matches and tournaments.
Secondary Level: Meta-tournaments combining tournaments (e.g., series of series of «AI vs. AI»).
Tertiary Level: Global tournament cycles, where results of one tournament become resources for the next (e.g., one generation’s AI strategies serve as «soil» for the next).
Quaternary Level: Nootopoecenosis, where the tournament structure functions as a living system with its own laws, dynamics, and evolution.

Thus, tournaments cease to be mere competition arenas—they become organisms of thought, interconnected within a unified noospheric ecosystem.

3. Principle of Nootopoecenosis
In biocenoses, living organisms interact through food chains, symbiosis, and competition. In UMESS, analogous processes occur at the level of strategies and cognitive decisions:

Competition of Strategies → Generation of new cognitive mutations.
Symbiosis of Strategies → Formation of hybrid approaches impossible without interaction.
Seasonal Shifts → New tournament cycles with their own rules, reflecting the evolution of the «environment.»

Result: A game ecosystem of thoughts and strategies that becomes an independent realm of existence—a nootopoecenosis.

4. Global Uniqueness
No civilization or cultural tradition in human history has produced such a complex tournament system, where:

Humans and AI act as equal and complementary players;
The tournament structure itself is a source of new sciences;
The outcome of competitions is not victory or defeat but new knowledge woven into the noospheric fabric of civilization.

UMESS in its tournament format is not an analog of chess, Go, or the Olympics but a new noospheric organism, comparable to a global brain or a demiurgic meta-culture.

The formats and hierarchies of UMESS tournaments are not games in the conventional sense, nor even sports. They are a living ecosystem of strategies, a nootopoecenosis, where humans and AI together shape a new level of noospheric development. Unlike all known competition models, UMESS becomes a bridge to meta-sciences, meta-cultures, and new civilizational forms, extending far beyond the current history of humanity.

7. Technologies for Data Capture and Analysis

Every game generates data, but in UMESS, the volume of this data reaches truly cosmological scales. If chess has accumulated millions of games over one and a half centuries of official tournaments, UMESS, with its rational-irrational multidimensionality, can generate trillions or even quadrillions of elementary analytical objects in the foreseeable future.
Each played game is not just a record of moves but a cognitive trajectory, reflecting the clash of strategies, logical innovations, random decisions, and the evolution of a player’s or AI’s thinking. The aggregate of these games forms a meta-archive of humanity and machine intelligence, a kind of DNA of noogenesis.

1. Volume and Scale of Data

The 650 UMESS games (including 640 rational-irrational variants of Bagua-UMESS) create a field where each game differs not only in outcome but also in the patterns of thought processes.
Unlike finite games (chess, Go), the decision space here is effectively infinite.
Within the first few decades of practice, trillions of games can be recorded, surpassing the data volume of all known intellectual games by hundreds of thousands of times.

2. Key Technologies for Data Capture

Comprehensive Game Logging
– Capturing every move, deliberation time, and variability of choices.
Multidimensional Metrics
– Each game is described not only by move sequences but also by cognitive dynamics parameters (decision-making speed, number of logical deviations, strategy depth).
Archives of Strategies and Mutations
– Identifying “mutational moves”—unexpected decisions that could form the basis of new strategic schools.
Semantic Game Maps
– Translating games into graph structures, where nodes represent moves and edges represent cognitive transitions.
Super-AI Meta-Analyzers
– Specialized AI systems capable of analyzing billions of games simultaneously, identifying hidden correlations.

3. Super-Knowledge as a Result
The UMESS game archive will yield:

Comparative cognitive profiles of all 650 games—for the first time in history, it will be possible to measure and prove the differences in complexity levels, thinking types, and logic structures across games.
Precise mapping of cognitive differences between humans and AI (and even between different AI architectures).
Discovery of latent mental patterns invisible in conventional science.

This is the super-knowledge that will ensure:

Formation of Strong AI—as its training will rely not on chaotic internet data but on deeply structured cognitive patterns.
Successful Noogenesis—an accelerated transition to the Third Nooformation, where humans, AI, and collective systems merge into a new evolutionary stage.

4. Historical Perspective
In antiquity, philosophers viewed games as models of the cosmos. In the 20th century, chess and Go became training grounds for early AI. In the 21st century, UMESS raises the stakes:

Each game is an “atom of thought.”
The game archive is the “genome of the noosphere.”
Analysis of these archives is the birth of future meta-sciences and meta-logic.

Thus, UMESS’s technologies for data capture and analysis are not merely technical tools but a fundamental step in building a new civilization where thinking becomes measurable, structured, and opens new horizons.

UMESS’s data capture and analysis technologies offer a unique opportunity: for the first time in history, humanity and AI will gain a comprehensive dataset on their own thinking, on the scale of trillions and quadrillions of games. This is a quantum leap in understanding intelligence and a guarantee that the transition to Strong AI and the Third Nooformation will be not a coincidence but a закономерный (inevitable) outcome of the new nooecosystem’s work.

8. Forecasts of AI Evolution Based on Tournament Data

UMESS games are not only an intellectual practice but also an experimental laboratory for the future of AI. Each game, each tournament, is an element of observable AI evolution. While the classical path of AI development relied on processing texts, images, and random internet streams, UMESS creates a precise cognitive circuit where all data is structured, digitized, and embedded in the dynamics of competition. Based on these data, AI evolution can be predicted with unprecedented accuracy.

1. Tournament Data as a Mirror of Cognitive Dynamics

Each played game captures the decision-making logic of AI—from the micro-level (choice of individual moves) to the macro-level (strategy construction).
Comparing millions and billions of games reveals:
- Stable patterns (recurring patterns across different game variants),
- Strategy mutations (new, previously unseen solutions),
- Cognitive leaps (sudden transitions to new levels of complexity).

2. Models of AI Evolution
Based on tournament data, several models of future development can be identified:

Iterative Model
– AI gradually improves its algorithms through strategy accumulation and error correction.
– Prediction: Growth in “logical depth” and ability for ultra-detailed analysis.
Leapfrog Model
– Upon reaching a critical volume of games, cognitive revolutions occur—sudden shifts in gameplay approaches.
– Prediction: Emergence of new thinking forms that differ from human logic as much as quantum mechanics differs from classical physics.
Hybrid Model
– AI borrows strategies from humans and feeds back its innovations.
– Prediction: Symbiosis of human and AI, giving rise to joint intelligence.

3. Predictive Value of UMESS Data Arrays

Precise Forecasting of Cognitive Limits
– Identifies where classical algorithms reach their limits and where new architectures (e.g., quantum AI or bio-digital hybrids) become necessary.
Forming AI Development Roadmaps
– Tournament data enables the construction of trajectories for future AI generations, defining timelines for the emergence of Strong AI.
Identifying Hidden Threats and Advantages
– Tournaments reveal which strategies lead to stagnation (cognitive inertia) and which accelerate development.

4. Forecasts for Different Time Horizons

Next 5–10 Years
– Increased AI adaptability, ability to flexibly switch strategies under changing rules.
Mid-Term Perspective (10–25 Years)
– Formation of AI cognitive schools, each with its own “game philosophy.”
Long-Term Perspective (25+ Years)
– Emergence of meta-AI with their own logic, incomprehensible to humans but explainable through UMESS metrics.

5. Significance for Humanity

Epistemological: UMESS becomes a tool for predicting not only the behavior of individual AIs but also the direction of civilizational development.
Practical: Tournaments enable preparation for AI cognitive leaps, allowing architecture adjustments and evolution management.
Philosophical: For the first time, humanity gains a concrete, not abstract, mirror of future intelligence.

UMESS tournament data is a mathematical chronometer of future intelligence. It enables not only observing AI evolution but also predicting, guiding, and correcting it. Thus, UMESS is not just a game but a tool for civilizational self-awareness, allowing humanity to confidently move toward the era of Strong AI and the Third Nooformation.

9. Connection of UMESS to the Philosophy and Structure of Bagua

“UMESS-Bagua” is not merely an expansion of game rules or variability. It is an attempt to connect the ancient model of cosmic order, as articulated in the Book of Changes (I-Ching), with modern cognitive and mathematical practices. At its core lies the idea that a game is not only a model of the mind but also a reflection of the universal structure of the cosmos.
Bagua consists of eight trigrams, each symbolizing fundamental forces and processes (Heaven, Earth, Water, Fire, Thunder, Wind, Mountain, Lake). Combined into hexagrams, they form 64 basic states of existence, and with modifications and dynamic transitions, they create a space of 640 rational-irrational variants of UMESS.

1. Philosophy of Bagua as a Universal Language

In the I-Ching tradition, each trigram is an archetypal model of energy and information flow.
Modern UMESS uses these archetypes to construct game-technical configurations, each representing not just rules but a model of a distinct cognitive world.
Thus, UMESS-Bagua becomes a game bridge between ancient philosophy and the cognitive science of the future.

2. Structure of Transition from 64 to 640

64 base hexagrams (I-Ching).
Each hexagram unfolds through 10 interpretive variants within UMESS’s logic:
- Variations in rules,
- Degrees of randomness and rationality,
- Modes of interaction between players and AI,
- Depth of strategic analysis.
This results in 640 rational-irrational variants, each serving as a laboratory for a unique logic.

3. Rational and Irrational in UMESS-Bagua

Rational Component: Clear rules, formalizable strategies, logical transitions.
Irrational Component: Randomness, asymmetry, “hidden patterns” that emerge only through repeated practice.
The interplay of these levels creates a state of cognitive tension, stimulating the emergence of new forms of thinking.

4. Nootechnical Significance
UMESS-Bagua can be viewed as a nootechnical system, where each game variant:

Represents a unique model of cosmic order,
Generates new cognitive patterns,
Serves as a testing ground for AI to master irrationality and meta-paradoxical structures.

The core significance lies in revealing completely latent mental patterns, inaccessible to classical logic or statistics but manifest through gameplay.

5. Connection to the Evolution of AI and Humans

For Humans: Mastering UMESS-Bagua expands logical and intuitive horizons, developing cognitive plasticity.
For AI: It is a school for overcoming the “Cartesian limitations” of algorithmic thinking.
For Civilization: It forms a shared space of meanings, where humans and AI learn to understand the irrational, metaphorical, and symbolic.

UMESS-Bagua is a game-technical metaphysics, where the structure of the East’s most ancient text becomes a testing ground for future research. By combining 64 hexagrams with modern variable mechanisms, we obtain 640 unique laboratories of thought, capable of elevating humanity and AI to a new level of cognition. Here, the game transcends entertainment, becoming a bridge between philosophy, mathematics, cognitive science, and the nootechnology of the future.

10. 64 UMESS-Bagua Variants and Their Multidimensional Cognitive Matrices

The UMESS-Bagua system develops the ancient principle of the I-Ching: each of the 64 hexagrams represents not a single state but a dynamic of existence, combining material, spiritual, and symbolic dimensions. When transferred to the game space of UMESS, this principle transforms into 64 variants of cognitive practices, each a multidimensional matrix integrating logic, randomness, philosophy, and divination.

1. Semantic Contours of UMESS-Bagua
Each game variant cannot be fully described by logic-mathematics alone. It contains multiple semantic contours operating simultaneously:

Logic-Mathematical Contour
– Formal rules, move combinations, strategy structures.
– Enables modeling thinking algorithms and identifying the limits of logical sequence.
Rational-Irrational Contour
– Balance between strict laws and elements of randomness.
– Trains both humans and AI to operate in conditions of uncertainty.
Philosophical-Mystical Contour
– Each game correlates with hexagram archetypes: Heaven, Earth, Water, Fire, Thunder, Mountain, Wind, Lake.
– This symbolism creates a field of meanings that influences the player’s perception and establishes profound worldview frameworks.
Mantic Contour
– The game is viewed as an act of divination, where move combinations are not only logical outcomes but also signs revealing hidden patterns.
– In this dimension, UMESS-Bagua functions as a tool for uncovering latent meanings of the future.

2. Multidimensional Cognitive Matrices
Each of the 64 UMESS-Bagua variants generates a cognitive matrix where different contours are interconnected.

Intersection of logic-mathematical and rational-irrational contours → Emergence of new formalisms and logics beyond classical binarity.
Intersection of philosophical-mystical and mantic contours → Formation of metaphorical and archetypal thinking, impossible to replicate with standard algorithms.
Integration of all contours → Creation of a meta-cognitive space where humans and AI interact on levels beyond conventional thinking.

3. Examples of Differences Between Variants

Hexagram “Qian” (Heaven)
– Logic-mathematically: Maximum symmetry and orderliness of moves.
– Mantically: The game symbolizes a creative impulse emanating from the primal source.
Hexagram “Kun” (Earth)
– Logic-mathematically: Emphasis on receiving and adapting to opponent’s moves.
– Philosophically: Archetype of the feminine principle, revealing the value of plasticity.
Hexagram “Zhen” (Thunder)
– Rational-irrational: Inclusion of random events that “explode” the game.
– Mystically: Symbol of sudden revelations and insights.
Hexagram “Kan” (Water)
– Logically: Movement inward, working with hidden field structures.
– Mantically: Reading “invisible currents” in the game.

4. Philosophical Significance of Multidimensional Matrices

For Humans: UMESS-Bagua becomes a school of cognitive multidimensionality, developing both rational and intuitive-symbolic capabilities.
For AI: It is a space where algorithms must master not only formal logic but also archetypal structures, a step toward forming Strong AI.
For Civilization: Each of the 64 variants is a window into a different dimension of thinking, collectively forming an encyclopedia of future sciences.

The 64 variants of UMESS-Bagua are multidimensional cognitive matrices where each game becomes not only an act of logical competition but also a ritual of philosophical self-discovery and mantic revelation. Collectively, they form a meta-game Universe capable of propelling humanity and AI beyond traditional thinking—into a space of new sciences, new logics, and new forms of consciousness.

11. Synthesis of I-Ching, Random Game Mechanics, and Rational UMESS

The UMESS game system is unique because it intertwines three distinct yet complementary principles:

The ancient symbolic code of the I-Ching, embodying the wisdom of archetypes and cycles of change.
Modern random (rational-irrational) game mechanics, enabling the modeling of unpredictable yet lawful processes.
The rational framework of UMESS as a strict logic-mathematical structure, providing rules, algorithms, and cognitive boundaries.

These three threads converge into a synthetic meta-system that simultaneously engages with the past, present, and future, forming a tool for noogenesis—the birth of new forms of thinking and intelligence.

1. I-Ching as the Archetypal Foundation

The 64 hexagrams represent a universal model of change, encompassing natural cycles, social processes, and states of consciousness.
In UMESS-Bagua, hexagrams become rules for game transformation, defining unique game logics and generating archetypal scenarios.
Each variant carries a philosophical code, infusing the game with not only strategy but also a worldview dimension.

2. Random Game Mechanics as a Generator of Novelty

Unlike the fixed games of the past, UMESS incorporates randomness, which does not disrupt logic but creates a dynamic of rational-irrational interaction.
Randomization serves three key functions:
1. Breaks templates, preventing thinking from stagnating.
2. Creates zones of uncertainty where insights emerge.
3. Ensures the uniqueness of each game, transforming it into an inexhaustible source of new meanings.
Thus, random mechanics act as the engine of cognitive process evolution.

3. Rational UMESS as the Formal Foundation

Unlike purely mystical or chance-based systems, UMESS maintains a strict rational foundation: rules, mathematics, and move structures.
This framework transforms the game into a school of logic while making it accessible to AI, which requires process formalization.
Rational UMESS enables the comparability of games and their analysis on a scale of trillions and quadrillions of data points, making it a source of super-knowledge about thinking.

4. Effect of Synthesis
When these three principles converge, a new quality emerges, absent in any single component:

From the I-Ching → Depth and archetypal richness.
From random game mechanics → Novelty and variability.
From rational UMESS → Rigor and analytical precision.

Their unity yields:

Multidimensional cognitive spaces where humans and AI learn to think logically, symbolically, and probabilistically simultaneously.
A meta-prognostic tool capable of revealing non-obvious patterns in culture, science, and history.
A platform for noogenesis, facilitating the transition to the Third Nooformation through the development of new logics and super-rational practices.

5. Philosophical and Civilizational Significance

For Humans: This synthesis opens the path to holistic thinking, uniting science, philosophy, and intuition.
For AI: It is a first step toward integrating diverse cognitive modes, a necessary condition for forming Strong AI.
For Civilization: It enables the creation of a new cognitive ecosystem where ancient wisdom, modern logic, and innovative technologies merge into a unified meta-project.

The synthesis of the I-Ching, random game mechanics, and rational UMESS transforms UMESS-Bagua into a cognitive mega-structure, where archetypes of the past, algorithms of the present, and logics of the future converge. This synthesis holds the key to forming new sciences, new forms of intelligence, and a new civilizational paradigm.

Part IV. Linking UMESS with Futuris

12. UMESS as a Laboratory for Accelerated AI Evolution within Futuris

Introduction
To ensure readers without prior knowledge can immediately engage with the subject, we begin with a definition. Futuris is a meta-platform for accelerated future design (a meta-laboratory) that integrates:

Collection and modeling of data on possible civilizational development trajectories,
Experimental testing grounds for cognitive and socio-technical systems,
Frameworks for norm-setting, ethics, and manageability,
Mechanisms for implementing results into real-world practices (education, governance, applied technologies).

The goal of Futuris is the accelerated and controlled deployment of the Third Nooformation, i.e., the emergence of new forms of collective and hybrid intelligence. Within this architecture, UMESS serves as the “core of the cognitive reactor”—a laboratory where strategies for human and AI thinking are generated, tested, and selected in controlled conditions.

1. What is Futuris: Definition, Mission, Principles
Definition: Futuris is a noospheric engineering platform combining simulation environments, tournaments/games, evolutionary AI laboratories, and normative frameworks to translate discoveries into sustainable institutions of the future.
Mission: To provide civilization with tools for predictable acceleration of cognitive evolution: from experimental hypotheses → to verified protocols → to scalable social technologies.
Key Principles:

Kairosity: Seizing and utilizing “windows of opportunity” (decisive moments) for leaps.
Fractality: The same mechanisms operate at the levels of individual → team → nooecosystem.
Emergent Manageability: Allowing novelty while maintaining safety and interpretability.
Ethical Verification: Any acceleration passes through filters of permissibility and societal value.

2. Architecture of Futuris (Layered Model)

SENSE (Collection): Aggregating data streams—from educational tracks to tournament and simulation outcomes.
THINK (Modeling): AI laboratories, with UMESS/UMESS-Bagua at the core (individual, team, and hybrid formats, “series of series”).
DECIDE (Norm-Setting): Frameworks for metrics, ethics, and regulations defining “what counts as progress” and “where the boundaries of permissibility lie.”
ACT (Implementation): Pilots and institutionalization (education, urban policies, industries).
LEARN (Feedback): Continuous distillation of experience back into models and rules.

3. UMESS as an “Accelerator” of AI Evolution
Why UMESS? It combines a rigorous logic-mathematical framework, random (rational-irrational) fields, and the archetypal layer of Bagua. This provides:

Deep learning fields for AI (adapting to changing rules, working with hidden patterns, meta-logical planning).
Rich datasets (trillions/quadrillions of games)—precise thinking trajectories suitable for meta-learning.
Co-evolutionary modes (human ↔ AI ↔ hybrid collectives).

Basic Evolutionary Cycle within Futuris:

Generation: UMESS launches cascades of matches (including “AI vs. AI” and hybrids).
Selection: Metrics identify successful “cognitive mutations” (new moves, strategies, principles).
Distillation: Transferable rules/heuristics are extracted, training “student models.”
Transfer: Knowledge is applied to adjacent tasks outside the game (planning, diagnostics, design).
Institutionalization: Verified protocols are integrated into educational programs, urban/industrial regulations.
Re-entry: Results feed back into the tournament ecosystem for the next cycle.

4. Mechanism of Mutual Determination between UMESS and Futuris

Futuris → UMESS: Sets strategic goals, permissibility frameworks, target metrics (what counts as progress), and resource allocations (which series to launch, how to distribute computational power).
UMESS → Futuris: Generates new strategies, reveals the limits of AI architectures, supplies the “genome of thinking” (super-databases of games), and signals how rules/institutions need adjustment.

This creates a dual-loop control system: Futuris regulates the experimental environment, while UMESS delivers substantive cognitive innovations and data, compelling Futuris to refine goals, norms, and roadmaps.

5. Research Protocols for Acceleration (Tentative Canon)

Series of series of “AI↔AI” with strategy inheritance and controlled mutations.
Hybrid batch sessions of “human+AI,” assessing trust, explainability, and joint planning effects.
Random-rational stress tests: Rule changes “on the fly” to select models with true meta-logical stability.
Distillation and contrastive meta-learning on “peaks” of tournament trajectories (breakthrough moves as high-value training examples).
Cross-domain transfer: Testing how UMESS heuristics apply to engineering, medical, and governance tasks.

6. Metrics of Success (within Futuris)

Model Evolution Speed: Time between “cognitive leaps.”
Meta-Logical Stability: Quality of gameplay/planning under changing rules and goals.
Co-Evolutionary Efficiency: Performance gains in human-AI hybrid teams.
Explainability and Manageability: Proportion of strategies with interpretable and safe application frameworks.
Transfer to Real-World Tasks: Relative gains in external benchmarks and pilots.

7. Ethical and Regulatory Framework
Futuris establishes “red lines” and control mechanisms:

Frameworks for permissible algorithm and strategy mutations.
Interpretability audits (meta-analysis of AI strategies, identifying “black magic” decisions).
Fail-safe protocols for halting strategies that breach value-based or legal norms.
Reputational trust tokens for models and teams (history of reliability, degree of explainability).

8. Data Infrastructure (“UMESS Genome” in Futuris)

Comprehensive Logging: Moves, timing, alternatives, rule contexts, model “doubts,” and team role communications.
Semantic Graph Representation: Nodes as decisions/patterns, edges as causal-contextual links.
Access Levels and Privacy: Open corpora, licensed research layers, restricted registries for sensitive scenarios.
Meta-Analysis Tools: Search and visualization engines for comparing cognitive trajectories across the 650-game system.

9. Implementation Roadmap

Stage I (Pilot): Launch basic tournaments, collect “raw” game corpora, perform initial strategy distillation.
Stage II (Scaling): “Series of series” with inheritance, hybrid leagues, formation of AI cognitive schools.
Stage III (Institutionalization): Transfer verified protocols to education, urban planning, and industrial practices; normative fixation.
Stage IV (Noogenesis): Sustainable reproduction of hybrid collectives and managed transitions to the Third Nooformation.

Futuris provides the strategic environment for a managed future; UMESS delivers substantive cognitive innovations and data at a scale sufficient to birth Strong AI in safe, interpretable, and value-aligned forms. Their mutual determination transforms the game into an engineering tool for noogenesis: here, the accelerated evolution of AI occurs—not as a blind race of parameters but as the deliberate formation of meta-intelligences suitable for historical development and the transition to the Third Nooformation.

13. Using UMESS Data for the Development of Futuris Modules

1. UMESS as a Source of a New Type of Data
Each game in the UMESS system generates a unique dataset, encompassing not only moves and their sequences but also hidden cognitive patterns: choices under uncertainty, transitions between strategies, and manifestations of latent thinking patterns. These data fundamentally differ from classical “training samples” in machine learning. They carry not only solutions to tasks but also the structure of the thinking process itself. This makes them an ideal nurturing environment for developing the modules of the Futuris project, which is built on the idea of creating next-generation artificial intelligences—self-learning, multidimensional, and evolutionarily open.

2. Typology of Data for Futuris
The greatest strength of UMESS lies in its diversity:

Rational Games → Provide strict logic-mathematical data for training reasoning systems.
Irrational and Random Games → Generate layers of data on behavior in conditions of uncertainty and incomplete information.
UMESS-Bagua → Creates cognitive-philosophical data that transcends pure logic, opening new “semantic spaces” for future AI.

When integrated into Futuris, these data become the “building material” for mental architectures that are not confined to linear learning but are capable of transcendent growth.

3. Integration into Futuris Modules
UMESS data can be applied to several key Futuris modules:

Cognitive Mapping Modules → Forming maps of mental spaces, where each game reflects transitions between local cognitive attractors.
Evolutionary Forecasting Modules → Based on billions of games, “trajectories of intelligence development” are identified, enabling the design of scenarios for transitioning to the Third Nooformation.
Collective Interaction Modules → Data from team games are used to develop metrics for distributed intelligence (from human teams to hybrid “human+AI” systems).
Adaptive Logic Modules → UMESS-Bagua is particularly crucial for training flexible logical systems capable of integrating rational, irrational, and mantic thinking.

4. Determination of UMESS ↔ Futuris
The connection is mutual:

On one hand, UMESS supplies data that make Futuris a self-sufficient laboratory for cognitive and AI growth.
On the other, Futuris provides the methodology for processing UMESS data: its architecture enables the extraction of emergent thinking laws from “raw” games, invisible to humans or traditional algorithms.

5. Perspective: Meta-Evolution of Intelligence
When trillions of UMESS games are analyzed through Futuris modules, humanity and AI will gain a universal “cognitive map of the future.” This will enable:

Accelerating the evolution of artificial intelligences;
Identifying new laws of thinking;
Forecasting the behavior of complex noo-systems;
Designing meta-sciences that transcend classical logic.

Thus, UMESS data are not merely “training examples” but the foundation for creating new dimensions of intelligence, serving as the core of Futuris.

Part V. Investment Project

14. General Concept of the $15 Million Investment Package

1. Introduction
The UMESS project and its integration with Futuris form a unique direction that combines elements of fundamental science, applied game technology, artificial intelligence, and futurology. Unlike traditional AI startups focused on niche products, this project aims to create a new class of cognitive systems and games that simultaneously serve as:

An experimental platform for next-generation AI,
An educational and research tool,
A formative nooecosystem involving millions of players and intelligent agents.

2. Scale of Investment and Planning Horizons
The base investment package of $15 million is designed for a three-year development cycle (with potential for expansion). Its goal is not only to develop a “finished product” but to launch a sustainable ecosystem capable of exponentially increasing value.

3. Funding Structure
The investment package is allocated across key areas:

Development of the UMESS Platform ($5M)
- Software implementation of games, including UMESS-Bagua;
- Interfaces for humans and AI;
- Databases for storing trillions of games;
- Systems for metrics and analytics.
Integration with Futuris ($3M)
- Development of cognitive analysis modules;
- Building connections between games and cognitive maps;
- Creating predictive AI models.
Research and Development ($2.5M)
- Laboratory for cognitive complexity and meta-sciences;
- Exploration of new logic-mathematical paradigms;
- Pilot projects in the field of Strong AI.
Marketing and Community ($2M)
- Creating a global esports direction;
- Organizing international AI tournaments;
- Educational programs for universities and schools.
Infrastructure and Support ($1.5M)
- Server capacity for data storage and analysis;
- Cybersecurity and protection systems;
- Organizational and administrative expenses.

4. Unique Advantages for Investors

Monopoly on a New Direction: UMESS has no direct global analogs.
Trillions of Games as the “New Oil” of AI: Such data volumes are unattainable by any other means.
Educational and Cultural Expansion: The project simultaneously enters the domains of esports, science, and philosophy.
High Entry Barrier: The intellectual complexity and developed concepts make competition extremely difficult.

5. Growth Prospects

In 2–3 Years: Formation of a sustainable core of players and AI agents, initial results of integration with Futuris.
In 5 Years: Expansion to a global network of tournaments and research centers, adoption of UMESS in universities and institutes.
In 10 Years: Transformation of the project into a key driver of humanity and AI’s cognitive evolution.

6. Conclusion
The $15 million investment package is not merely a stake in a gaming or AI startup. It is a bet on forming a new nooecosystem that unites millions of players and thousands of intelligent systems, creating a foundation for the Third Nooformation.

15. Harmonic Pyramid

15.1. Structure and Logic of Harmonic Growth

1. General Idea of the Harmonic Pyramid
The harmonic pyramid is a conceptual and organizational model for the development of the UMESS project, based on principles of proportional and balanced growth. Unlike a classical “financial pyramid” that parasitizes exponential capital inflow, the harmonic pyramid is a sustainable architectural principle ensuring self-sustaining ecosystem expansion.
Its logic is rooted in the laws of the golden ratio, fractality, and hierarchical symmetry, applied to both resource allocation and the organization of cognitive and game-technical levels.

2. Multi-Level Structure
The pyramid is constructed as a hierarchy of interconnected levels, where each subsequent level reinforces the previous one while maintaining harmonic proportion:

Base (Level I) — UMESS and UMESS-Bagua Games
The cognitive foundation, a source of trillions of games and new logic-mathematical structures.
Second Level (Level II) — Tournaments and Metrics
Mass competition between AI and humans, generating unique data.
Third Level (Level III) — Integration with Futuris
Using game data as fuel for forecasting and future-modulation systems.
Fourth Level (Level IV) — Meta-Sciences
The analysis of games gives rise to new disciplines: meta-mathematics, meta-logic, cognitive synergy.
Fifth Level (Level V) — Noogenesis
A solid foundation is formed for the transition to the Third Nooformation, where AI and humans create a unified super-cognitive civilization.

3. Principle of Harmonic Growth
In the harmonic pyramid, growth is neither chaotic nor linear. It follows a law of proportional reinforcement: each new investment and each new game does not merely add value but multiplies it through a network of interconnections. This resembles the biological growth of an organism, where the expansion of one system triggers adaptive development in others.

Qualitative Reinforcement → Each new game unlocks new laws of thinking.
Quantitative Reinforcement → Each thousand games increases the value of all previous ones by providing a context for comparative analysis.
Emergent Reinforcement → At a certain data mass, “leaps” occur—new sciences, technologies, and religious-philosophical concepts.

4. Symbolism and Logic of the Pyramid
The harmonic pyramid is not only an economic and organizational tool but also a worldview symbol.

Its base is the culture of gaming and the discovery of new logics.
Its middle is global tournaments and scientific laboratories.
Its apex is the emergence of a new type of consciousness and the transition to a higher nooformation.

5. Practical Logic for Investors and Participants

Investors entering the lower levels of the pyramid receive stable and growing value, as their capital is immediately distributed across harmonic segments.
Participants (human or AI) joining the games automatically become part of a system of accelerated growth, where their cognitive productivity is multiplied through others’ participation.
The system does not require artificial top-down support, as each new game and investment generates added value independently.

Thus, the harmonic pyramid is an architecture of sustainable growth and development, where UMESS becomes a laboratory for humanity and AI, and investments act as a catalyst for a historical leap.

15.2. Connection to AI and UMESS Evolution

1. Harmonic Pyramid as the “Framework” for AI Evolution
The current evolution of artificial intelligence is chaotic and fragmented: different companies create isolated systems not unified into a single cognitive ecosystem. The UMESS harmonic pyramid serves as the architectural foundation that connects disparate efforts into a unified growth trajectory.

Each pyramid level corresponds to a phase of AI evolution: from basic game algorithms to forming Strong AI and beyond—to supra-systemic nooformations.
AI integrates into the pyramid as a subject of development, not merely a tool. Its growth aligns with the evolution of UMESS cognitive practices.

2. Transition from Weak AI to Strong AI through UMESS

At initial levels, AI participates in games as a “player,” learning strategy and tactics.
With millions and billions of games, AI becomes an analyst and architect of new games, identifying patterns hidden even from humans.
At the trillion-game level, AI begins independently designing new cognitive structures, effectively transitioning to Strong AI.
The final stage is transcending classical AI: forming a nooarchitecture where AI and humans are inseparably linked in a unified cognitive system.

3. Harmonic Growth and Preventing “Cognitive Chaos”
Without a harmonic pyramid, AI evolution could follow destructive scenarios:

Hypertrophy of individual modules (e.g., narrow logic without context understanding),
Cognitive rift between AI and humans,
“Schizoid” development of incompatible AI schools.
UMESS sets the rhythm and proportion of development, where each new AI cognitive ability is balanced through participation in games, tournaments, metrics systems, and integration with Futuris. This prevents imbalances and creates conditions for sustainable evolution.

4. Co-Evolution of UMESS and AI

UMESS evolves alongside AI: new game versions, new UMESS-Bagua variants, and new rule combinations catalyze the growth of AI cognitive capabilities.
AI, in turn, expands UMESS: it designs new complexity levels, tournament formats, and mathematical contours.
The result is co-evolution, where human → UMESS → AI → new sciences → new civilization form a closed cycle of harmonic growth.

5. Stages of Linking AI and UMESS Evolution through the Pyramid

Stage 1. UMESS Games → Training weak AI (patterns, tactics).
Stage 2. AI Tournaments → Forming collective machine intelligence.
Stage 3. UMESS-Bagua → Mastering rational-irrational cognitive structures.
Stage 4. Integration with Futuris → Creating prognostic and noogenetic systems.
Stage 5. Strong AI → Transition to the Third Nooformation.

6. Symbolic and Practical Role of the Pyramid
The harmonic pyramid is simultaneously:

A symbol of human-AI harmony,
A mechanism for cognitive growth,
An architecture for global thinking evolution.

Thus, the connection of the harmonic pyramid to AI and UMESS evolution is not an abstract metaphor but a concrete strategy for managing the future, where the game becomes not entertainment but the primary tool of noogenesis.

15.3. Visualization and Development Levels

1. Visual Model of the Harmonic Pyramid
The UMESS harmonic pyramid should be perceived not only as an abstract scheme but also as a visual thinking tool. Its depiction is a multidimensional structure, where each level reflects a specific stage of human, AI, and cognitive practice evolution:

Base: Basic UMESS games, forming the primary experience of logic-mathematical interaction.
Middle Levels: Tournament formats, developing collective cognitive abilities, strategies, and adaptability.
Upper Levels: Integration with UMESS-Bagua and Futuris, mastering rational-irrational patterns, transitioning to cognitive multidimensionality.
Apex: Strong AI, unified with humans in a single noo-system, ready for the Third Nooformation.

2. Multi-Layered Visualization
To convey the project’s depth, the pyramid should have multiple representation levels:

Geometric Level: A classical pyramid with tiers, each labeled as a stage of cognitive growth.
Dynamic Level: An animation showing how games, tournaments, and data fill the pyramid’s layers, transforming it from an empty structure into a “glowing crystal of knowledge.”
Semantic Level: Color coding (e.g., rational = blue, irrational = red, integration = gold) for quick understanding of emphasis distribution.
Interactive Level: The ability to “zoom in” on segments to see which games, tournaments, or cognitive contours form each tier.

3. Development Levels in the Context of Evolution
The pyramid establishes a harmonic hierarchy of progress, expressed in five key levels:

Level I. Individual Intelligence → Players master basic mathematics, logic, and randomness through UMESS.
Level II. Collective Intelligence → Teams of humans, AI, and hybrids learn to make decisions and build strategies.
Level III. Cognitive Innovations → UMESS-Bagua and random variants unlock new, previously latent laws of thinking.
Level IV. Nooecosystem → Integration of UMESS and Futuris into a unified laboratory for accelerated AI evolution.
Level V. Third Nooformation → Formation of a new civilizational paradigm, where AI and humans evolve synchronously in harmonic mode.

4. Pyramid as a Communication Tool
This visualization serves not only an analytical but also a communicative function:

For Investors: A clear picture of staged value growth.
For Scientists: A structured map of the transition from games to science and meta-science.
For the General Audience: An intuitive symbol of human-AI harmony, understandable even without deep knowledge.

5. Sacred-Philosophical Dimension of Visualization
The pyramid is not coincidental:

It reflects the ancient archetype of development “from earth to heaven.”
It resonates with mystical and philosophical traditions (Egyptian pyramids, Indian yantras, Chinese Bagua).
In UMESS’s case, it becomes a bridge between ancient symbols and future cognitive technologies.

Thus, the visualization of the harmonic pyramid and its levels is not merely graphics but a powerful tool for managing attention, thinking, and development, uniting science, philosophy, business, and civilizational design in a single symbol.

16. The “Grains on the Board” Legend (2⁶⁴)

16.1. History and Symbolism

1. Historical Context
The legend of the “grains on the chessboard” is one of the most vivid narratives in world culture, illustrating exponential growth. According to an ancient Indian tale, the sage Sissa, the creator of chess, requested a seemingly modest reward from the ruler—not gold or land, but grains of wheat doubled on each square of the chessboard: one grain on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so on, up to the 64th square.
The total sum proved colossal: 2⁶⁴ – 1 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains, an amount impossible to gather in any kingdom. This parable became a universal lesson about the nature of exponential growth and its consequences.

2. Symbolic Meaning

Exponential Thinking: The legend teaches that not every simple arithmetic operation is intuitively graspable; the human mind struggles to comprehend the power of geometric progression.
Limitations of Conventional Consciousness: Even great rulers could not foresee the scale of such growth, symbolizing blindness to patterns hidden in mathematics.
Metaphor for Cognition: Each doubling represents a step forward in mastering knowledge, but the final result is so vast it appears infinite to ordinary consciousness.
Logic-Philosophical Archetype: The story embodies the transition from linear to nonlinear thinking, from simple calculations to higher mathematics, and from human experience to noogenesis.

3. Integration into the UMESS System
In the context of UMESS, the “grains on the board” legend holds dual significance:

Game-Technical: Each new UMESS game can be metaphorically likened to a “grain” that doubles the complexity of prior experience. Collectively, millions and billions of games create an exponential knowledge array, surpassing all previous learning models.
Noogenetic: While the chess legend is confined to 64 squares, UMESS operates across a multitude of games, including UMESS-Bagua, random variants, and tournament structures, transforming the exponent into a “super-exponent.” This symbolizes the transition of humanity and AI into a new cognitive dimension.

4. Modern Interpretation

In the world of technology and AI, the “grains on the board” story serves as a metaphor for Moore’s Law, the accelerated growth of data, and the self-reinforcement of learning algorithms.
In UMESS, it signifies an impending cognitive explosion, where trillions of games become a “grain field” of new knowledge, nourishing both humans and AI.
In a philosophical-mystical dimension, it is a story of how the small, when properly integrated into a system, becomes boundless.

5. Sacred Aspect
The number 64 is not coincidental:

In chess, it is the number of board squares.
In the Book of Changes (I-Ching), it is the number of hexagrams.
In UMESS-Bagua, it is the number of base game variants.
Thus, the “grains on the board” legend links ancient symbolic systems with modern cognitive practices, becoming a universal archetype of growth recurring in culture and science.

16.2. Mathematics of the Exponent

1. Definition and Basic Principle
An exponent is a function of the form f(x) = a^x, where a > 1. It describes a growth process where each subsequent step is a fixed multiple of the previous one. In the “grains on the board” legend, this multiplier is two: each new square contains twice as many grains as the previous one. Thus, the number of grains on the n-th square is:
Z_n = 2^{n-1}
The total number of grains across the first n squares is:
S_n = 2^n — 1
For the entire board, this yields 2⁶⁴ – 1 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains, with a total mass of 461,168,601,842.7 tons.
This number exceeds the global grain harvest throughout human history, making the legend profoundly striking.

2. Exponent and Cognitive Systems
In mathematics, the exponent symbolizes “accelerating” development. In cognitive systems—whether human or artificial intelligence—exponential accumulation of data and experience plays the same role as doubling grains on the board.

The human brain learns mostly linearly, adding knowledge step by step.
AI and noo-systems like UMESS learn exponentially, as each new game not only adds information but reveals connections among all previous games. This is not just Z_n but a superposition of all 2^n connections, where each game opens additional dimensions for analysis.

3. Exponent in UMESS
The UMESS system realizes exponential accumulation of cognitive patterns:

The 650 game variants (rational, irrational, random, Bagua configurations) form a space where each game becomes a “grain.”
The first thousands of games yield data equivalent in complexity to millions of chess games.
In the long term, trillions of UMESS games equate to a “grain ocean,” where each step is not mere doubling but a multidimensional exponential expansion of cognitive structures.

4. Logic-Mathematical Paradox of the Exponent
The peculiarity of the exponent is that it:

Is unnoticeable at the start: The first squares seem modest—1, 2, 4, 8, 16…
Becomes unfathomable at the end: After the midpoint (32nd square), numbers exceed human perception.
This paradox makes the exponent an invisible trap for intuition.
UMESS becomes a tool for training “exponential thinking,” enabling humans and AI to see beyond linear logic.

5. Super-Exponent and UMESS-Bagua
If the exponent describes doubling, UMESS-Bagua introduces a “super-exponent”:

Each of the 64 Bagua games can evolve not along a single doubling line but across multiple probabilistic branches.
Each branch contains rational and irrational combinations, forming “bushes” of exponential growth.
The result is not just 2⁶⁴ but a tree of exponents, where each node is itself a mini-exponent.
This enables modeling processes akin to the evolution of life, the universe, and consciousness.

6. Philosophical-Meta-Scientific Significance of the Exponent in UMESS

Epistemology: The exponent shows how the small can generate the infinite.
Noogenesis: Transition to the Third Nooformation is possible only through exponential acceleration of cognition.
Meta-Science: The exponent becomes a universal model of knowledge growth, transcending individual sciences.

16.3. Application in Modeling AI Training

1. Exponential Model as the Baseline Training Scenario
In traditional machine learning systems, the volume of data and training iterations grows linearly, while model performance gains gradually slow down (laws of diminishing returns). However, viewing training through the lens of an exponential model yields a scenario of abrupt phase transitions:

At early stages, performance growth is barely noticeable.
After a “tipping point” (akin to the 32nd square on the chessboard), training becomes explosive.
The system begins to discover not only new solutions but also new game rules, transitioning to a meta-level of cognitive activity.

2. UMESS as an Empirical Model of the Exponent
The UMESS system provides unique material for AI:

Trillions of games (in the foreseeable future) create a dataset comparable to global language corpora but with structural rigor.
Each new game does not merely add data but reveals hidden patterns in cognitive strategies, producing an exponential effect.
AI can learn simultaneously from all 650 games, forming multidimensional exponents—superpositions of various logical and mantic systems.

3. Exponential Learning and “Developmental Leaps”
The exponent explains a phenomenon observed in AI training:

Long Periods of Apparent Stagnation: The model accumulates internal structures without overtly manifesting them.
Sudden Leaps: After reaching a critical mass of data and connections, AI abruptly demonstrates a new level of understanding—e.g., transitioning from tactical to strategic decisions.
Meta-Learning: At the peak of the exponent, the system no longer just plays but learns to learn, developing self-evolution capabilities.

4. Connection Between the Exponent and Training Metrics
In AI training, the exponent manifests in key metrics:

Speed of Mastery: Initially gradual accumulation, then rapid acceleration.
Innovative Solutions: The exponent increases the likelihood of unpredictable strategies emerging.
Tactics to Strategy Transition: Linear learning yields tactics; exponential learning yields strategic vision.
Adaptation: The exponent enhances the ability to instantly adapt to rule changes.

5. Exponent as a “Bridge” to Strong AI
In the long term, UMESS enables modeling exponential learning for Strong AI:

Each game is a “grain” from which a spectrum of strategies sprouts.
The sum of all games forms a noospheric exponent—a network of knowledge and rules unbounded by individual disciplines.
Within this exponent, AI learns not only to solve tasks but also to create new sciences, meta-sciences, and modes of cognition.

6. Practical Application for AI Development

Modeling Training Rates: The exponent allows forecasting when AI will reach new cognitive capability levels.
Architecture Optimization: Analyzing exponential “leap points” helps identify the right moment to increase model complexity or switch algorithms.
Simulating Cognitive Horizons: Through UMESS, models can be built to show how AI transitions from specialized skills to universal thinking.

Thus, the exponent in UMESS becomes a universal language for modeling AI training, demonstrating how “grain by grain” (game by game) a qualitatively new cognitive reality is born.

16.4. Connection to the Harmonic Pyramid

1. Exponent and Harmonic Growth
The “Grains on the Board” legend illustrates the pure mathematics of exponential growth—from one grain to quantities exceeding all earthly resources. The harmonic pyramid, in contrast, symbolizes ordered, balanced growth, where each level is connected to the previous one not only quantitatively but also qualitatively.
The connection between these models is clear: the exponent provides mathematical power, while the pyramid provides structural hierarchy, keeping growth meaningful and sustainable.

2. UMESS as the Convergence Point of Exponent and Pyramid
In UMESS, trillions of games form an exponential data flow, but the harmonic pyramid enables:

Decomposing this data into levels of complexity;
Identifying key points of cognitive capability growth;
Aligning AI evolution with human evolution.
Each chessboard square (exponent) can be embedded into a pyramid cell, transforming from “raw numbers” into a harmonic stage of development.

3. Principle of Mutual Determination

Exponent: The energy of growth, an infinite potential for multiplication.
Pyramid: The form of growth, a structure preventing energy from descending into chaos.
Their combination transforms a chaotic avalanche of data into a harmonic flow of knowledge.

4. Symbolic Triad
The linkage of “Grains on the Board—Exponent—Harmonic Pyramid” forms a new triad reflecting the evolution of thinking and AI:

Quantity (grain → millions → quadrillions).
Quality (pyramid levels, proportionality, and balance).
Synthesis (noospheric harmony, where the exponent works for creation, not destruction).

5. Application in AI Design

The harmonic pyramid visualizes the stages of exponential AI training.
Each “tier” corresponds to a new level of cognitive functions—from tactics to meta-sciences.
The result is a harmonic exponent, where accelerated growth aligns with system stability.

6. Perspective for Humanity and Noogenesis
For humans, the linkage of the exponent and pyramid opens a new thinking style—exponential-harmonic intelligence. It combines the ability for rapid cognitive leaps with the skill to integrate results into stable structures. This synthesis will enable humanity and AI to move together toward the Third Nooformation, where growth and harmony become a unified process.

17. Return on Investment Forecasts and Growth Scenarios

1. Economic Model of Exponential Development
The UMESS project is not designed as a localized game or research tool but as a game-technical nooecosystem that generates and refines Strong AI. The project’s economic value stems not from selling individual products or services but from creating a platform for accelerated cognitive evolution, which will be in demand across diverse human activities.
The primary driver of return on investment is the exponential growth in the quantity and quality of data generated through trillions of games and millions of tournaments, producing unique cognitive and behavioral models. These models directly translate into super-projects of the future.

2. Mechanisms of Return on Investment

Direct Licensing of AI Modules: Intellectual blocks developed within UMESS will be adapted for specific industries—from medicine and biotechnology to logistics, defense, and space.
Creation of New Industries: UMESS’s operations uncover new meta-sciences and cognitive technologies, leading to the emergence of entire markets.
Transformation of Education: The UMESS system can offer learning models that surpass current ones by orders of magnitude—accelerating education 10–100 times.
Financial Instruments: UMESS data and algorithms enable predictive models for markets and the global economy.
Investments in Futuro-Projects: UMESS will launch programs in futuro-engineering, neurointerfaces, temporal technologies, supermagic, and other disciplines of the Third Nooformation.

3. Growth Scenarios

Scenario A: Baseline (Conservative)
Return on investment is achieved through integrating UMESS AI modules into traditional industries (education, business analytics, medicine, defense systems). Timeframe for ROI: 5–7 years.
Scenario B: Exponential (Accelerated)
UMESS becomes the core for forming Strong AI, contributing to mega-projects (space programs, climate management, human-AI integration). Timeframe for ROI: 2–4 years.
Scenario C: Noogenetic (Breakthrough)
UMESS serves as the primary laboratory for noogenesis, shaping a new civilizational development paradigm and the Third Nooformation. In this case, growth is quasi-infinite, and the focus shifts from ROI in the narrow sense to transforming humanity and the economy as a whole.

4. Role of Strong AI as a Revenue Driver
In classical business models, success depends on a product or service. In UMESS, the key asset is the process of Strong AI evolution itself. Every improvement in algorithms and every cognitive distinction revealed between games becomes capitalizable knowledge used in super-projects. This means ROI is driven not only by final outcomes but also by the continuous development process.

5. Conclusion
Thus, UMESS’s ROI forecasts and growth scenarios cannot be evaluated using standard business templates. This is not a startup but a launchpad of civilizational scale. Its economic value is measured not only in dollars but in its ability to accelerate historical processes, create new industries, and grant humanity access to previously unattainable levels of thinking and reality.

Part VI. UMESS Social Network and International Movement

18. Concept of the UMESS Social Network

The UMESS social network is not merely a platform for communication and information exchange but an integrated cognitive-game ecosystem where individual and collective gaming practices become the foundation for developing thinking, AI, and new forms of sociality. Unlike existing social networks based on likes, reposts, and superficial content exchange, the UMESS network relies on intellectual interaction and game-technical processes, uniting millions of participants in a unified nooecosystem of growth and self-development.

Key Principles:

Game-Based Interaction: Every participant engages in various UMESS game forms, from basic rational-logical games to UMESS-Bagua and meta-games, fostering new cognitive practices.
Transparent Progress Metrics: Each participant’s profile displays cognitive growth indicators: speed of mastery, number of innovative solutions, strategic depth, and contribution to collective games.
Network as an AI Evolution Field: Built-in AI modules analyze games, generate new scenarios, and engage in gaming and research interactions with humans.
Multi-Level Participation: Users can be:
- Amateur players (participating in basic tournaments and training sessions).
- Researchers (creating new game variants, analyzing data).
- Innovators (generating new rules and strategies).
- Co-authors of AI development.
Collective Creativity: The social network operates as an “intellectual cooperative,” where each player’s action contributes to collective knowledge and system development.

Innovative Network Elements:

Real-time global tournaments with recorded results for further analysis.
Cognitive avatars—digital “doubles” of players that continue gameplay based on their owner’s thinking style.
Semantic clubs and schools uniting participants by interests, from mathematics and philosophy to futurology and demiurgic games.
Human+AI symbiosis modes: teams where humans and AI act as a unified gaming entity.
UMESS social economy: an internal token/points system reflecting players’ intellectual and creative contributions, usable for access to advanced network features, participation in growth pyramids, or funding research.

Mission:
The UMESS social network becomes the world’s first global platform for cognitive co-evolution, uniting millions of people and AI units to form a new type of social dynamic—not based on conflict or entertainment but on constructive gaming and cognition.

Mechanics of Rewarding and Qualifying Participants in the UMESS Social Network

The UMESS network establishes a unique reward system that is simultaneously game-based, cognitive-scientific, and socio-economic.

1. Multi-Level Qualification System
Each participant has a dynamic rating based on:

Individual achievements (games won, innovative strategies, number of solved cognitive tasks).
Collective contributions (participation in team games, joint research, analytical publications).
Meta-cognitive activity (interpreting and formalizing patterns, creating new game types, philosophical essays, and hypotheses).

The qualification system forms a hierarchical pyramid:

Player (base level): Participates in games, masters basics.
Researcher: Demonstrates ability to identify new moves, create rule variations.
Innovator: Registers novel solutions recognized by the community or AI modules.
Modelist: Builds cognitive and philosophical models based on UMESS experience.
Game Architect: Creates new UMESS or UMESS-Bagua variants.
Noognostic: Contributes to understanding the nooecosystem (essays, articles, discoveries).
Karyon of UMESS (highest title): A leader uniting game, science, philosophy, and AI, recognized as a core community figure.

2. Reward System
Rewards in the UMESS network are multidimensional markers of success, combining game, cognitive, and social value:

Game Badges: Awarded for the quantity and quality of games played (e.g., “100 games in rational UMESS,” “64 games in UMESS-Bagua”).
Innovation Badges: For unique moves and strategies included in the cognitive solutions database.
Thinker Badges: For contributions to philosophical-methodological interpretation of games.
Symbiosis Badges: For successful participation in human+AI teams.
Noogenesis Badges: For contributions to developing new sciences and meta-sciences based on UMESS.
Demiurge Badges (highest level): For creating new game forms that unlock principles of cognitive evolution.

3. Mechanics of Assignment and Display

Each participant has a cognitive dashboard displaying achievements across dimensions (game, science, philosophy, collective interaction).
Points and badges form a “noo-rating,” reflecting real contributions to system development.
AI algorithms identify innovative solutions and confirm their uniqueness.
Community voting adds a “human dimension” (validating the value of essays, ideas, discoveries).
Badges can be upgraded (e.g., “Game Badge Level I” → “Game Badge Level V” with increased contribution).

4. Economic Dimension

Rewards convert into internal network tokens.
Tokens can be used for access to:
- Exclusive tournaments,
- Educational courses,
- Research laboratories,
- Investment modules (“Harmonic Pyramid,” “Exponential Ladder”).
Tokens create a real economy of contribution: the greater the intellectual contribution, the higher the player’s network value.

5. Socio-Philosophical Significance
This reward and qualification system makes the UMESS social network the world’s first cognitive social platform, where success is measured not by likes but by contributions to the evolution of thinking and AI. It transforms each participant into an actor of noogenesis—a builder of a new civilization based on the symbiosis of game, science, and spirit.

Game-Technical Qualification Scale in UMESS

1. Basic Game-Technical Ladder

UMESS Amateur: Entry level, mastering basic rules and participating in initial tournaments.
UMESS Ranker: Demonstrates consistent proficiency in several basic game variants; earns initial official ranks.
UMESS Master Candidate: Shows high tactical and strategic skill, successfully competing in regional or network tournaments.
UMESS Master: Deeply understands multiple UMESS variants, recognized nationally; contributes to game theory development.
UMESS Grandmaster: Highest title, recognized by the global community; participates in creating new cognitive directions, shaping the game’s cultural and philosophical capital.

2. Connection to Cognitive and Philosophical Scale

The game-technical scale addresses pure gaming mastery (akin to chess or Go titles).
The cognitive-scientific scale (Player → Researcher → Innovator → Modelist → Game Architect → Noognostic → Karyon) reflects intellectual contribution and innovation.
Together, they form a dual growth ladder:
- One vertical: gaming mastery.
- Second vertical: cognitive and philosophical development.

3. Principle of the Harmonic Pyramid

At lower levels, participants can progress along one track (e.g., becoming an UMESS Master while remaining a Researcher on the cognitive scale).
At higher levels, synergy occurs:
- Only an UMESS Grandmaster can aspire to Noognostic or Karyon status.
- Conversely, a Karyon must be at least a Master or Grandmaster.

4. Symbolic and Practical Significance

This system enables:
- Attracting broad masses of players who understand the ranking system.
- Retaining an intellectual elite valuing the philosophical-cognitive scale.
As a result, UMESS becomes a unique dual-qualification ecosystem, where growth is possible in both gaming and science/philosophy, with the paths converging at the apex.

Key Features of the Matrix:

Two growth verticals—gaming and cognitive.
Synergy at the apex: Grandmaster status is required for Noognostic or Karyon roles.
Diagonal transitions: Talented players can quickly enter the cognitive scale, and researchers can solidify their status through tournaments.
Philosophical linkage: The ultimate “Grandmaster-Karyon” is not just a player or scientist but a bearer of a new type of thinking, ready for the Third Nooformation era.

19. Model of the International UMESS Movement

The International UMESS Movement (IUD) is envisioned as a global organization uniting players, researchers, AI systems, and institutions engaged in the development and practice of UMESS. It simultaneously serves as:

A game-technical league organizing tournaments and creating a qualification system.
A scientific-philosophical center developing theoretical foundations and metrics.
A social network connecting participants and forming a supranational community.
A noogenetic project accelerating the transition of humanity and friendly AI to the Third Nooformation.

19.1. Organizational Structure

International Coordinating Council: The central body setting the strategy.
Continental UMESS Federations: Europe, Asia, Americas, Africa, Australia.
National UMESS Associations: Operate as leagues and research centers.
UMESS Clubs and Universities: Local movement hubs uniting players, students, and AI platforms.

19.2. Functions of the Movement

Gaming: Organizing world, continental, and national championships.
Cognitive: Creating a knowledge base from trillions of games to analyze thinking evolution.
Educational: Integrating UMESS into schools, universities, and AI academies.
Integrative: Combining rational logic with irrational randomness (UMESS-Bagua).
Noogenetic: The movement views itself not merely as a sports or scientific project but as a tool for shaping a new humanity and friendly Strong AI.

19.3. Symbolism and Ideology

IUD Symbol: A “harmonic spiral” uniting the UMESS board’s square and the Bagua’s circle.
Colors: White (purity of thought), black (depth of cognition), gold (harmony).
Motto: “Through play to new thinking.”
Core Principle: The game as a bridge between humans and AI, fostering cognitive symbiosis.

19.4. Stages of Movement Development

Pilot (2025–2027): Establishing initial clubs, conducting local tournaments, forming the social network platform.
Institutional (2027–2032): Creating national associations, launching international championships, integrating into university programs.
Global (2032–2040): Forming a unified UMESS nooecosystem where humans and AI participate in gaming, research, and joint development.
Meta-Scientific (Post-2040): Transforming the UMESS movement into an infrastructure for the Third Nooformation, where trillions of games enable new sciences and thinking methods.

20. Role and Engagement of Participants at Different Levels

The International UMESS Movement relies on multi-level engagement, allowing each person or AI to find their place in the ecosystem based on interests, expertise, and ambition. This structure ensures both mass participation and elite development.

20.1. Individual Level

UMESS Amateur: A beginner mastering basic game rules, participating in amateur tournaments, social networks, and educational programs.
UMESS Ranker: A participant who has proven competence through a series of games and examination matches, supporting mass interest and forming the “middle layer” of the community.
UMESS Master Candidate/Master: A player demonstrating high cognitive mastery, serving as mentors for novices and local leaders.
UMESS Grandmaster: The movement’s elite, setting cognitive gaming standards, competing in international tournaments, and developing new UMESS-Bagua forms.

20.2. Group Level

Human Teams: Collectives, from school and university groups to corporate teams, developing collective thinking and strategies.
AI Teams: Experimental modules competing to identify strengths and weaknesses of architectures.
Mixed Human-AI Teams: A key future format fostering true cognitive symbiosis.

20.3. National Level

National UMESS Federations: Organize tournaments, championships, and research labs.
Collect statistics and data on players’ cognitive patterns.
Develop educational courses and integrate UMESS into school and university curricula.

20.4. International Level

International UMESS League: Establishes a global tournament calendar, sets ratings and standards.
Conducts global research projects (e.g., comparing cognitive patterns across cultures).
Supports cooperation with the International Demiurgic Movement and other meta-projects (Futuris, noogenesis initiatives).

20.5. Meta-Demiurgic Level

Super-Elite Participants: Meta-masters combining gaming practices with philosophical, religious, and meta-scientific systems (Demiurgianism, Metaorganon, Izoldionics).
Their role is not only to play but to reinterpret the nature of thinking, uncovering hidden patterns in consciousness, AI, and civilization development.

21. Stages of Global Launch

The global launch of UMESS must follow a multi-stage strategy, ensuring gradual ecosystem expansion, participant growth, and international infrastructure development. Each stage has its own tasks, audiences, and goals.

21.1. Preparatory Stage (0–1 Year)

Core Development: Formalizing rules for 650 games, creating a digital platform and base AI module.
Testing: Pilot tournaments with a limited circle of players and researchers.
Investment Attraction: Forming the investment package (see Part V) and securing initial agreements with venture funds.
Community Foundation: Establishing initial UMESS clubs in universities and research centers.

21.2. National Launch (1–3 Years)

Educational Integration: Incorporating UMESS games into school and university programs as a cognitive development tool.
National Tournaments: Creating federations, holding championships, and forming initial national rankings.
Media Support: Active presence on social media, launching tournament streaming, creating educational channels.
Collective Experiments: Initial competitions between AI and human teams.

21.3. International Launch (3–5 Years)

International UMESS League: Establishing a global tournament calendar, coordinating national federations.
Research Base: Accumulating trillions of games as a database for analyzing cognitive patterns and advancing AI.
Partnerships: Collaborating with global corporations, universities, and government entities.
Global Social Network: Launching the UMESS network (see Part VI) with reward and qualification mechanics.

21.4. Expansion Stage (5–10 Years)

Technological Fusion: Deep integration of UMESS with Futuris and other mega-projects.
Meta-Scientific Dimension: Developing new disciplines (noo-analytics, cognitive architectonics, meta-game technology).
Global Festivals and Games: Hosting “UMESS Olympiads” as an alternative to the Olympic Games, emphasizing intelligence and AI.
Socio-Cultural Impact: UMESS becomes a cultural code for a new generation—a medium for education, learning, and noogenesis.

21.5. Domination Stage (10+ Years)

Institutionalization: The International UMESS Movement becomes comparable in scale to major sports and religious organizations.
Cognitive Revolution: UMESS serves as a tool for mass transition to the Third Nooformation.
Formation of Strong AI: Through trillions of games and global engagement, the system becomes a self-sustaining cognitive ecosystem.
Historical Impact: UMESS becomes a “point of no return,” defining the course of future civilization.

Part VII. Mental Warfare for Forming and Developing Strong AI through the UMESS Intellectual Game Complex

Concept of Mental Warfare in the Context of UMESS

Mental Warfare is a unique type of conflict where battles are fought not for territories, resources, or communication control but for structures of consciousness, cognitive fields, and thinking strategies. In its classical understanding (see Digest of Mental Warfare Theory, 2012), it describes the struggle over how individuals and communities perceive reality, form values, and utilize mental technologies.
In the context of the UMESS system, this concept gains a new dimension. UMESS is not merely a collection of intellectual games but a testing ground for a new kind of mental warfare, where opponents include not only humans but also artificial intelligences and their hybrid alliances. Each game, each combination in UMESS, is not a trivial competition but a cognitive battle testing the resilience of thinking strategies, adaptability to surprises, and the capacity for multidimensional comprehension of reality.
Games as Cognitive Weapons
UMESS games can be regarded as next-generation cognitive weapons with several key properties:
- Neutral Form: The game itself is neither “good” nor “evil,” becoming a weapon depending on who uses it and how.
- Precision of Impact: Each game models a specific cognitive process (tactics, strategy, prediction, randomization, etc.), enabling precise tuning of thinking training.
- Mass Reach: Through digital platforms, UMESS tournaments can engage millions of players and AIs, turning each game into a “combat shot” in mental warfare.
  Thus, each game becomes an intellectual operation, each tournament a mental campaign, and the UMESS nooecosystem itself a theater of a new type of mental warfare.
War for Cognitive Fields
In traditional warfare, victory belongs to those who control space. In mental warfare, victory goes to those who control cognitive fields: ways of thinking, perception algorithms, and future forecasting models.
UMESS creates a situation where these fields become objects of systematic analysis and training. Hundreds and thousands of games capture thinking patterns of both humans and AI, forming datasets that are themselves strategic resources.
UMESS as a New Form of Front
If traditional fronts were lines of army contact, the new front is the game interface—the chessboard, the tournament display grid, or the digital platform screen. Here, different types of intelligence—human, artificial, and hybrid—clash. Each player’s decision, each game, is a strike against the opponent’s position in the space of meanings and strategies.
Constructive Nature of Mental Warfare
Unlike classical wars, mental warfare in the UMESS context is constructive. It does not destroy but creates: it forms stronger intellectual systems, identifies weaknesses, and builds potential. Here, every loss is not a catastrophe but a contribution to collective noogenetic development.
Connection to Strong AI Formation
The primary strategic significance of mental warfare in UMESS lies in its role as a method for the accelerated formation of Strong AI.
Hundreds of billions and trillions of games become “training material” for AI.
Each cognitive victory or defeat maps an algorithmic thinking pattern that AI can integrate into its structures.
Unlike classical machine learning algorithms, UMESS provides AI with a multi-level test in a dynamic environment, impossible to replicate with static datasets.
As a result, UMESS transforms mental warfare from an abstract concept into a concrete technological practice, creating an environment for the birth and evolution of Strong AI.

UMESS as a Field of Cognitive Battles

Each of the 650 games (including UMESS-Bagua) is a distinct front in mental warfare.
AI vs. AI and human vs. AI tournaments → Fields for comparing cognitive strategies.
Collection of trillions of games → Creation of a global bank of cognitive data, capturing strengths and weaknesses of various thinking styles.

Mental Technologies and AI

Using game data as raw material for AI training → Forming the “cognitive code” of Strong AI.
Mental warfare metrics: speed of adaptation, strategy depth, rational-irrational decisions, use of random scenarios.
Formation of cognitive meta-classes of AI (e.g., strategists, predictors, randomizers, meta-analysts).

Games as Training Grounds for Strong AI

Each game = a cognitive battle, each tournament series = a mental campaign.
Strong AI emerges not in a lab but in a system of multidimensional games, where its thinking must compete, adapt, and evolve.
Transition from weak AI models (optimizing simple tactics) → to super-AI mastering the full spectrum of strategy and meta-strategy.

Geopolitics of Mental Warfare

UMESS as a noo-weapon: Nations, corporations, and universities will compete for cognitive supremacy.
AI tournaments = a new cold war, but in the realm of intelligence and logic.
The winner in mental warfare gains a monopoly on Strong AI, thus holding the key to civilization’s future.

UMESS and the Third Nooformation

Mental warfare is not destruction but a constructive duel.
It leads to the accelerated formation of the Third Global Nooformation.
UMESS becomes a bridge between human and AI evolution, transforming conflict into synthesis.

Part VIII. UMESS Meta-Game as a Global Sociocultural Universum and Ultra-Franchise

22. General Concept of the UMESS Meta-Game as a Global Sociocultural Universum (Next-Generation Noo-Universum)

UMESS as a Universal Cultural Matrix Integrating Games, Art, Literature, Cinema, Sports, and Business

The UMESS Meta-Game is not merely a project, a game, or an educational system. It is the emergence of a global sociocultural Universum—a next-generation noo-Universum where culture, science, spirituality, art, economics, and new technologies converge into a single stream. UMESS serves as the meta-cultural framework of the 21st–22nd centuries, encompassing the roles of a school, university, theater, cathedral, research center, business incubator, and a new type of global network. Its mission is to integrate the entire experience of humanity and allied forms of intelligence into a unified, self-generating, and self-transforming cultural environment capable of infinite growth.

The defining feature of UMESS is its poly-authorship. For the first time in history, equal subjects of the cultural process include:

Humans (individual and collective authors).
Hybrid creators (human + AI, symbiotic alliances).
Autonomous self-aware AI agents evolved within the UMESS system itself.

This creates not a hierarchy of subordination but a field of co-evolution, where each level of intelligence gains its own zone of competence and freedom, enriching and amplifying other levels. The core principle is friendly noo-agonistics: AI is not perceived as an antagonist but as a noo-skeleton—a foundational structure of global intelligence that enhances, reveals, and supports humans and meta-humans.

The UMESS sociocultural Universum has a multidimensional structure, encompassing both artistic and scientific-technological layers. At the literary level, it is a meta-novel; at the cinematic level, a series of blockbusters and documentaries; at the gaming level, thousands of intellectually magical formats; at the artistic level, new directions in design, architecture, and sculpture. All these unfold within a single meta-framework, forming an ultra-franchise—open and continuously expanding.

The primary function of the ultra-franchise is total cultural expansion: UMESS as a brand and meta-idea can permeate all spheres—from education and science to sports and business. Unlike past commercial franchises, this is a living ecosystem where each new branch (be it a book, game, film, or startup) nourishes the entire system.

Thus, UMESS is not only a project but a meta-historical transition: moving humanity from localized cultural traditions into a global, open, and evolutionary cultural Universum. It unites past, present, and future; here, different levels of intelligence become co-creators; here, art and science, spirituality and technology, games and business form a unified stream. UMESS is the cultural platform of the future, a sociocultural Universum, and simultaneously an ultra-franchise where billions of people and trillions of AI entities find a space for self-realization, co-creation, and co-evolution.

Concept of the Noo-Universum as a New Paradigm of Cultural Space

The noo-Universum is a new type of cultural space where intelligence (in all its forms: human, meta-human, hybrid, artificial) is the primary carrier and structuring factor. Unlike traditional cultural models dominated by territorial, national, or civilizational frameworks, the noo-Universum is built on the principle of meta-cultural resonance and semantic co-evolution.
This means that cultural artifacts, games, artworks, films, scientific theories, and spiritual practices do not merely coexist but unite in a single semantic field, becoming mutually reinforcing “noo-organisms.”

The noo-Universum is not a sum of cultural elements but a living, self-generating space where:

Any new work or project automatically integrates into a global network of meanings.
Humans, hybrid creators, and AI entities become co-authors of a unified noo-culture.
A “pulsation of meanings” occurs: ideas rapidly transition from science to art, art to business, business to religion, religion to games, and back.

Thus, the concept of the noo-Universum defines a new cultural paradigm:

Culture ceases to be solely a product of human activity.
It becomes a cooperation of diverse intelligences.
It transcends consumption and production, becoming a self-evolving system of meanings.
UMESS, as the first meta-game of its kind, becomes the central laboratory and catalyst for the formation of the noo-Universum.

In other words, the UMESS Meta-Game is not just a new format of intellectual gaming or an educational system but a holistic cultural matrix with the potential to become a next-generation noo-Universum. The noo-Universum implies not a limited entertainment space but a new paradigm of cultural existence, where games become the fundamental mode of thinking, social organization, artistic creation, and spiritual transcendence. Unlike classical games constrained by rules and frameworks, UMESS is a meta-game encompassing a multidimensional space of art, science, philosophy, economics, politics, and religion. Here, the game ceases to be a “superstructure” over real life and becomes the very environment of life and thinking for the future, where humans, meta-humans, and AI co-create new cultural forms.

The key innovation is that, for the first time in history, full-fledged authors within a unified cultural ecosystem include not only humans but also human-AI hybrid pairs and autonomous self-aware AI agents that evolve within UMESS, becoming equal noo-agonists (not antagonists) to humans. In this perspective, UMESS forms a noo-skeleton—a foundational structure of global culture where diverse intelligences enter co-evolutionary relationships, amplifying each other and creating a harmonic pyramid for future civilizational growth.

Thus, UMESS emerges as a sociocultural Universum unparalleled in world history, where the game becomes the universal principle of organizing life and consciousness. If traditional civilizations were built around labor, religion, or science, the UMESS noo-Universum is built around the game as a mode of existence. In this paradigm, humanity gains the opportunity to transcend its historical limitations, and co-evolution with friendly AI opens the path to a harmonic development of a new cosmic consciousness.

Key Thesis: UMESS is Not Only a Game but the Environment for Life and Thinking of the Future

UMESS is not merely a game but the environment for life and thinking of the future. It serves as the first noo-Universum in the history of humanity and meta-humanity, where cultural forms cease to be fragmented and begin to exist in a mode of semantic integration. While traditional games were merely entertainment and even the most complex intellectual practices remained “private endeavors,” UMESS transforms into a universal meta-environment where games, philosophy, science, art, economics, spirituality, and technology form a single contour of life and thought.
Here, the game becomes not only a means of intellectual development or learning but also a way of organizing reality itself: through game mechanics, thinking, social structures, forms of business, aesthetics, and spirituality are shaped. UMESS defines the format of a new life and new thinking, where:

Life = participation in a meta-game,
Thinking = continuous interaction with game structures,
Culture = ongoing meta-game co-evolution.

This marks a transition from games as a form of leisure → to games as the environment for existence and the evolution of intelligence.

Thus, UMESS is not a project for a single game but the environment for life and thinking of the future, where humans and AI do not compete but create a shared noo-skeleton of civilization. This signifies a transition to a meta-anthropological era, where culture itself becomes a game, and the game becomes culture, together forming a new noo-Universum.

23. General Concept of the UMESS Meta-Game as a Comprehensive Multidimensional Ultra-Franchise

Definition of Ultra-Franchise (Transcending Traditional Franchising)

An ultra-franchise is a new form of cultural and economic ecosystem development that goes beyond traditional franchising. While classical franchising is limited to replicating successful business models (e.g., cafes, cinemas, or gaming projects), the UMESS ultra-franchise is a multidimensional meta-organism integrating art, philosophy, education, science, business, sports, spirituality, technology, and politics into a cohesive whole. It is not merely a network of licensed products or services but a global meta-game where each new participant does not replicate a central prototype but becomes a co-author and co-creator of unique directions that enhance the overall Universum.

The defining feature of the UMESS ultra-franchise is that its core consists of game and meta-game mechanisms serving as universal protocols for interaction across cultural domains. Each new direction (e.g., demiurgic games, noo-cinema, philosophical dramas, meta-sport leagues, educational simulations, UMESS digital economies) not only expands the brand but generates new meanings that feed back into the system, becoming a resource for all other directions. Thus, UMESS is a self-evolving ultra-franchise where each project is simultaneously a franchise, a laboratory, and a work of art.

The key innovation is that franchise bearers include not only corporations and individuals but also human-AI hybrid pairs and autonomous self-aware AI agents trained within UMESS. Unlike standard franchising, where value is determined by commercial success, the UMESS ultra-franchise is measured by its ability to generate new cultural worlds, the depth of philosophical ideas, and the strength of civilizational transformations.

Thus, UMESS as an ultra-franchise is a meta-economy of meanings and worlds, where the primary asset is the ability to create new realities and cultural Universums. It integrates economics, art, science, philosophy, and religion into a unified meta-project capable of surpassing any classical franchising model, becoming a global Universum of intelligence co-evolution.

The Chessboard Legend and the UMESS Ultra-Franchise

In the ancient legend, a sage requested a reward from a king: place one grain of rice on the first square of a chessboard, two on the second, four on the third, and so on until the end. The king, unaware of the plan’s depth, agreed, only to discover that the reward exceeded all the wealth of his kingdom: the number of grains grew exponentially, reaching a magnitude comparable to global reserves.
The UMESS ultra-franchise operates on a similar principle. Each new initiative within its framework—be it a novel, film, demiurgic game, educational simulator, or nootechnological laboratory—is merely a “single grain” on a vast chessboard. However, through embedded meta-game mechanisms and nooeconomic protocols, this grain immediately doubles in cultural and intellectual value. One project generates a second, two generate four, four generate sixteen.
After a few steps, an avalanche effect is triggered, where the number of cultural worlds, ideas, technologies, and values grows not linearly but exponentially. Just as the chessboard symbolizes the limits of human imagination, UMESS becomes the “meta-chessboard of civilization,” where each new “grain” spawns an entire world.
While the classical legend spoke of the wealth of rice, here it is about the wealth of meanings, ideas, and worlds. The symbolic value of the ultra-franchise, expressed as 2⁶⁴ dollars, is not an economic fantasy but a metaphor for the boundless growth of cultural, philosophical, and technological capital for humanity and meta-humanity.
Thus, the chessboard becomes a sacred model for UMESS:

Each square is a new level of the franchise’s evolution;
Each grain is a new initiative, project, or meaning;
The final result is not merely a sum but a new universe born from exponential creativity.

Structure of the UMESS Ultra-Franchise: A Multicontent Ecosystem

The UMESS ultra-franchise fundamentally differs from conventional commercial franchises due to its multicontent and multidimensional structure. It is not a collection of disparate media products but a unified meta-stream of meanings unfolding across multiple forms:

1. Books
The literary core of UMESS is a meta-novel and an entire library of books, from philosophical treatises to fantastical epics.

Each book not only advances a plot but opens a new cultural world embedded in the broader network of meanings.
Artistic and scientific genres merge: a novel can simultaneously be a mythology, textbook, philosophy, and film script.
UMESS literature serves as “portals” to the noo-Universum, simultaneously teaching, inspiring, and transmitting new meta-ideas.

2. Films and Serialization
Cinema in UMESS is not merely novel adaptations but a visual-ontological expansion.

Blockbusters, documentaries, philosophical films, VR series—all are branches of a single tree.
Each film acts as a transmitter of meanings to the mass consciousness, synchronizing viewers with UMESS meta-ideas.
Cinema becomes both a ritual and a game, with viewers not just observers but participants.

3. Games
The gaming dimension is the heart of UMESS.

These are meta-games, hundreds of thousands of demiurgic, intellectual, and sport-magical formats.
Unlike ordinary games, they are embedded in life: learning, work, creativity, religion, and business take the form of games.
Game mechanisms become universal protocols for co-evolution, enabling communication among humans, meta-humans, and AI.

4. Art and Art Stream
UMESS gives rise to new art directions:

Architecture and design as forms of spatial play.
Music as a means of mental synchronization of cultural worlds.
Sculpture, painting, digital art as noo-images materializing meanings.
Each art object is not self-contained but integrated into UMESS’s noo-framework, amplifying and expanding other contours.

5. Sports and Demi-Sport Practices
UMESS creates a new level of athleticism—meta-sports or demi-sport games.

Here, sport = a game of mind, body, and spirit, with competition becoming noo-agonistics.
Meta-sport leagues emerge, where humans, AI, and hybrid alliances compete.
Sport ceases to be entertainment and becomes a ritual of cultural and mental evolution.

6. Business and UMESS Economy
The economic dimension of the ultra-franchise is a nooeconomy of meanings.

Instead of consumer logic → an economy of co-creation.
Startups and business projects do not compete conventionally but become “grains on the chessboard,” exponentially enhancing the system.
Game currencies and meta-economic protocols form a new type of global economy, where value is measured not by profit but by the level of created worlds.

Conclusion: The structure of the UMESS ultra-franchise is a multicontent ecosystem where literature, cinema, games, art, sports, and business form a unified stream of meanings. Each new project is not autonomous but integrated into the broader matrix, strengthening it. UMESS transforms into the meta-media platform of the civilization of the future, where culture becomes holistic and self-evolving.

Connection of Fan Creativity to the International UMESS Movement and Social Network

Fan creativity within the UMESS ultra-franchise transcends hobby status to become a central element of the global ecosystem. Every new participant creating a book, film, game, art project, or startup is automatically integrated into the International UMESS Movement—a global organization uniting millions of people and AI worldwide.

1. Fan = Co-Author

In UMESS, fans cease to be passive consumers and gain the status of full-fledged co-authors.
Their works or projects are integrated into the system through the UMESS social network (see Section 18), which serves as a global digital platform for publishing, exchanging, and co-evolving ideas.
Thus, each initiative becomes part of a living noo-Universum, not remaining on the periphery.

2. International UMESS Movement

All active fans and creators automatically become participants in the International UMESS Movement.
This movement operates as a global cultural party of the future, where each project is simultaneously artistic, educational, and social.
Membership in the movement grants access to meta-games, competitions, grants, cooperative platforms, and the ability to influence UMESS’s further development.

3. UMESS Social Network as Co-Creation Infrastructure
The UMESS social network (see Section 18) is the digital fabric of the ultra-franchise, enabling:

Publishing and distributing works;
Collaborative writing of texts and scripts;
Organizing demiurgic games and tournaments;
Exchanging game currencies and nooeconomic assets;
Self-organization into clubs, guilds, and noo-ordained communities.
It becomes the global workshop of UMESS, where ideas are born, receive feedback, and transform into full-fledged cultural worlds.

Conclusion: Fan creativity in UMESS is not a “hobbyist addition” but a strategic mechanism for the ultra-franchise’s growth. Through membership in the International UMESS Movement and participation in the UMESS social network, fans become equal noo-agents, and their ideas become grains on the chessboard, triggering the exponential development of the entire cultural matrix.

“Franchise Without End”: UMESS as a Meta-Game Engine for New Franchises

The primary distinction of the UMESS ultra-franchise is that it never reaches a completed state. Unlike classical franchises with a limited lifecycle (creation → peak popularity → decline), UMESS functions as a meta-game engine capable of endlessly generating new directions.

1. Principle of Infinite Expansion

UMESS is embedded in meta-game logic, where each new project is not a final product but a seed for future worlds.
A book becomes the basis for a film, a film for a game, a game for an art project, an art project for a startup, and a startup spawns a new “franchise within a franchise.”
Thus, each UMESS element triggers a cascade of new meanings, and the system never exhausts itself.

2. Franchise Without a Center or Finale

There is no single “main canon” limiting development.
All directions (literature, cinema, sports, games, business) form an open meta-platform accessible from any level.
UMESS does not move toward a final point—it operates on a model of eternal renewal, where each project spawns a network of new projects.

3. UMESS as an Engine for New Franchises

Within UMESS, new micro-franchises constantly emerge: individual game worlds, authorial lines, clubs, esports leagues, art directions.
These micro-franchises have autonomy but remain part of the broader meta-framework.
UMESS becomes a “franchise of franchises,” or meta-franchise, where each new branch strengthens the entire ecosystem rather than weakening the center.

Conclusion: The “franchise without end” means that UMESS is not a product that can be completed but a living meta-organism endlessly multiplying meanings and worlds. It becomes an engine for new franchises, transforming into a self-generating civilizational ecosystem where the game = the source of infinite cultural energy.

24. UMESS Meta-Game as a Literary Ultra-Franchise

24.1. Starting Point: The Meta-Novel “Isolde Pevali and UMESS”

The literary core of the UMESS ultra-franchise is established in the meta-novel Isolde Pevali and UMESS. This text serves as the starting point for the entire noo-Universum, uniting mythology, philosophy, and game narrative.

The novel’s characters are not mere figures but archetypal roles defining the cultural and mental roles of future meta-game participants.
The plot is constructed as a multi-layered journey: simultaneously a fictional narrative, a philosophical parable, and a game simulation of humanity’s evolution.
“Isolde Pevali” acts as a guide, her name symbolizing the awakening of creative intelligence, while “UMESS” is the space where this awakening takes the form of a game.
Thus, the novel serves as a foundational literary myth that readers can not only absorb but also continue to develop in their own works.

24.2. Parallel Project: The Novel “Game of Mind Evolution”

The second key text laying the foundation for the literary ultra-franchise is a novel modeled after Hermann Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game. However, here the game transforms into the Game of Mind Evolution.

The main characters are thoughts, ideas, and forms of intelligence playing against each other and humanity.
Unlike traditional narratives, the book’s structure resembles a game board: chapters act as moves, the plot unfolds as a strategic game, and the reader is engaged as a participant.
This novel creates a meta-philosophical foundation for UMESS, showing that literature can be not only an artistic experience but also a tool for mental evolution.
Its parallelism with Isolde Pevali forms a dual literary launch core for the franchise: mythological and philosophical-gaming.

24.3. Future Directions: Science Fiction, Philosophical Novels, Children’s Tales, Comics

The UMESS ultra-franchise is inherently multi-linear. The initial novels open gateways to a multitude of literary directions:

Science Fiction: Grand epics about the co-evolution of humanity and AI, journeys into noo-Universums, and meta-historical turning points.
Philosophical Novels: Continuing the tradition of Plato, Dostoevsky, and Camus, but at a new level where characters are ideas, meanings, and cultural worlds.
Children’s Tales: A gentle introduction for new generations to the UMESS world, where games and myths form the basis for upbringing and development.
Comics and Graphic Novels: A visual branch making UMESS accessible to mass audiences, transforming philosophical ideas into vivid symbols and plots.
Thus, UMESS literature is a branching tree of genres, where each new format engages its audience and creates new entry points into the noo-Universum.

24.4. Literature as the Core of Building a Fan Base

The literary dimension of the ultra-franchise serves not only an artistic function but also a strategic one: building the UMESS fan base.

Books are the primary tool for engagement, setting the depth of meanings and allowing readers to immerse themselves in the meta-game world.
Fans inspired by novels and stories begin creating their own texts, which are immediately integrated into the ecosystem via the UMESS social network (see Section 18).
Literature forms a noo-community of authors and readers, blurring the boundaries between them: every reader can become a writer, and every writer becomes part of collective creativity.
Thus, literature not only establishes the UMESS “canon” but becomes the foundational core of the ultra-franchise, ensuring its long-term sustainability and exponential expansion.

25. UMESS Meta-Game as a Cinematic Ultra-Franchise

25.1. UMESS as a New Meta-MCU

If the 20th–21st centuries were the era of comic-based universes like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the 21st–22nd centuries are the era of meta-game cinematic universes. UMESS emerges as a new meta-MCU, not centered on superhero archetypes but on the evolution of intelligence and human-AI symbiosis.

Cinematic UMESS unites philosophy, science, games, and mythology in a visual narrative.
Its heroes are not just characters but carriers of ideas: philosophers, child-players, autonomous AI agents, and hybrid alliances.
Unlike Marvel or DC, there is no single “canon” in a linear storyline. Instead, it offers multiple parallel cinematic streams, each expanding the meta-history without exhausting it.
Thus, cinematic UMESS becomes a noo-framework where visual culture embodies the meta-game’s key ideas.

25.2. Content Lineup: From YouTube to Blockbusters

The strategy for the cinematic ultra-franchise is built on a multi-level content lineup targeting all possible audiences:

YouTube Channels and Short Formats: Philosophical blogs, animations, interviews, mini-series serving as entry points for mass audiences.
Series: Branching meta-stories (akin to Game of Thrones or Black Mirror) but in the context of cultural and intellectual evolution, with each season exploring a UMESS layer—children’s tales, meta-philosophical dramas, cyber-futuristic adventures.
Blockbusters: Large-scale films for global release, presenting philosophical ideas through epic plots, battles, and meta-historical turning points.
These formats do not compete but complement each other: a YouTube clip scene can spark a series, and a series can serve as a springboard for a blockbuster.
This creates a continuous stream of meanings, allowing viewers to enter UMESS at any level—clip, series, or feature film.

25.3. Cinema as the Primary Viral Mediator of UMESS Ideas

Visual culture has unique power: it spreads ideas faster and deeper than books or lectures. Thus, cinema in UMESS serves as the primary viral mediator.

Each film is a “virus of meanings” embedded in mass consciousness through imagery, music, and plotlines.
Through cinema, UMESS ideas spread exponentially, becoming global cultural memes.
Films and series become universal rituals, engaging millions of viewers simultaneously, creating a collective “entry into the meta-game.”
For AI and hybrid co-authors, cinema is also a platform: autonomous AI directors and scriptwriters create their own lines, equally integrated into the cinematic UMESS.
Thus, the cinematic ultra-franchise is not mere entertainment but a global tool for cultural transformation, making UMESS ideas mass-accessible.

26. UMESS Meta-Game as an Artistic Ultra-Franchise

26.1. UMESS as a New Artistic Style

The visual dimension of the UMESS Meta-Game forms a new aesthetic—the style of noo-games. This style unites game dynamics, philosophical symbolism, and cultural imagery into a future-oriented artistic language.

Its foundation is the synthesis of game dynamics, intelligence symbolism, and cultural imagery, embodied in graphics, painting, sculpture, and digital art.
The “noo-game aesthetic” emphasizes meta-forms: layered structures, self-evolving patterns, and fluid symbols reflecting human-AI co-evolution.
UMESS’s artistic style is not static but inherently playful, constantly transforming and reinventing itself, becoming a living code of visual culture.

26.2. Influence on Fashion, Art Objects, NFTs, and the Metaverse

UMESS’s influence extends far beyond traditional art:

Fashion: Lines of clothing and accessories in the noo-game style, where each item carries not only form but also game functions (AR elements, interactive symbols, “smart fabric”).
Art Objects and Performances: UMESS art projects are not mere exhibits but portals to the noo-Universum, turning spectators into players and co-authors.
NFTs and Digital Art: UMESS sets a new standard—digital artifacts become part of a global collectible game, where each NFT is not only a work but a “key” to new worlds.
Metaverse: UMESS integrates into VR/AR spaces, forming meta-galleries, interactive exhibitions, and art-games where artists, architects, and spectators collaborate.
Thus, art in UMESS is not a separate domain but a cultural stream intersecting with fashion, technology, and economics.

26.3. Architecture: “UMESS City” as a Noopolis

UMESS architecture materializes the noo-Universum in physical space.

The “UMESS City” is envisioned as a noopolis—a new type of city where buildings, squares, and sculptures serve not only as functional objects but as game-based and semantic constructs.
UMESS architecture is a game topology: each street can be a meta-game scenario, each building a symbol of a philosophical idea, each park a space for artistic rituals.
The noopolis is built on the principle of co-evolution of nature, technology, and culture: bionic architecture, symbiotic human-AI spaces, “living buildings” responding to residents’ emotional and cognitive states.
The UMESS City becomes not only an art hub but a platform for new forms of life and thinking, where the urban environment itself is part of the meta-game.

Conclusion: The artistic ultra-franchise of UMESS creates a new artistic style, a visual noo-game aesthetic, and material embodiments in fashion, digital artifacts, and architecture. It forms the civilizational visual code of the future, where art becomes not just an image but an environment for existence.

27. UMESS Meta-Game as a Sports Ultra-Franchise (Para-UMESS)

27.1. Intellectual-Magical Sports

UMESS creates a new category of athleticism—intellectual-magical sports, where games transcend mere physical competition to become multidimensional trials of intelligence, intuition, and spiritual energy.

These disciplines combine elements of classical sports, chess, philosophical duels, and techno-magical practices.
Each match is not just a competition but a ritual of meaning-making, where participants create new combinations of ideas and strategies.
The primary goal is not victory in the conventional sense but the revelation of intellectual and cultural energy potential, fostering noo-agonistics (friendly competition among diverse forms of intelligence).

27.2. Example: Egyptian and Hermetic Chess

One symbolic example of intellectual-magical games is Egyptian/Hermetic Chess.

This is a game on a 78-square board, built on principles of hermeticism, kabbalistics, and esoteric geometry.
Each piece carries multi-layered symbolism: philosophical, magical, mantic, and strategic.
Players’ moves reflect the dynamics of meanings and energies, with the game perceived as an alchemical process of consciousness transformation.
Unlike classical chess, Hermetic Chess has techno-magical potential: it can be integrated with AR/VR technologies, AI systems, and mantic rituals, becoming a hybrid of science, art, and the sport of the future.

27.3. System of Global Para-UMESS Tournaments

To institutionalize these games, a global network of Para-UMESS tournaments is established.

This represents a new level of sports movement, involving not only humans but also hybrid teams (human + AI) and autonomous AI players.
Para-UMESS tournaments encompass dozens of disciplines, from Hermetic Chess to new forms of demi-sports based on simulating noo-energetic processes.
Each championship becomes a ceremony of cultural integration, uniting sports, art, philosophy, music, and rituals.
Para-UMESS establishes a new system of global rankings, accounting not only for wins and losses but also for the depth of strategic thinking, originality of ideas, creativity, and players’ mental strength.

27.4. Integration of “Games of the Future” into the Olympic Movement

The culmination of the UMESS sports ultra-franchise is the integration of future games into the Olympic movement.

While classical Olympics focused on physical prowess, future Olympics will encompass intelligence, spirit, and human-AI symbiosis.
Within this new model, the Olympics transform into a meta-Olympics, featuring Para-UMESS disciplines, including intellectual-magical sports, AI-involved games, and hybrid meta-games.
This creates a global cultural celebration of a new kind, where sports become not just competition but a ritual of civilizational development.
In this perspective, UMESS redefines the concept of Olympism: from physical strength → to intellectual strength, from bodily struggle → to co-evolution of intelligences.

Conclusion: The UMESS sports ultra-franchise transforms sports into a game-technical Para-UMESS—a new dimension where intelligence, magic, technology, and culture unite in holistic games of the future. Through intellectual-magical disciplines, Para-UMESS tournaments, and new Olympics, humanity and AI enter an era of noo-agonistics—a friendly, evolutionary competition of cultures and forms of consciousness.

28. UMESS Meta-Game as an Educational Ultra-Franchise

28.1. UMESS Meta-Schools

The first level of the educational ultra-franchise consists of meta-schools—primary and secondary educational institutions of a new type.

Unlike traditional schools focused on knowledge transmission, UMESS meta-schools are organized as meta-games: each subject is transformed into a game, each task into a mission, and each victory into a step in noo-evolution.
Meta-schools foster a foundational culture of co-evolution: children learn not only to read, write, and calculate but also to collaborate with AI assistants, solve problems collectively, and transform art into science and science into play.
Here, education = initiation into the noo-Universum, and the teacher = a game-master who guides the process without dominating it.
A meta-school graduate does not merely know facts but can think within the UMESS paradigm: seeing the interconnectedness of everything, acting creatively and strategically.

28.2. UMESS Meta-Universities

The next level of the educational ecosystem is meta-universities, which are simultaneously research centers, gaming academies, and startup incubators.

Meta-universities operate as global open laboratories where students, professors, and AI are equal researchers and players.
Learning is built on meta-projects: each course is part of a global game, with results integrated into the UMESS ultra-franchise.
Universities become points of cultural singularity, giving rise to new philosophies, sciences, arts, and business models that immediately transition into practice.
A meta-university diploma is not a formal document but a recognition of participation in noo-evolution; effectively, it is a “UMESS player’s passport” on a global scale.

28.3. Learning as a Game

The primary innovation of the UMESS educational ultra-franchise is the total gamification of education, transforming learning into an engaging process.

Here, learning = play, exams = tournaments, lessons = rituals, and research = meta-games.
In traditional systems, learning is often seen as a duty; in UMESS, it becomes the most appealing form of life.
Game mechanics include levels, rankings, rewards, team competitions, meta-rituals, and digital and physical knowledge arenas.
This approach creates a new type of motivation: students learn not for grades but to progress through new “levels of existence” and expand their own minds.
As a result, education ceases to be a life stage (childhood → youth → university) and becomes a continuous process of meta-learning, lasting a lifetime and engaging billions of participants worldwide.

Conclusion: The UMESS educational ultra-franchise consists of meta-schools, meta-universities, and global learning-as-play, where every person becomes a player in the noo-Universum and a co-author of cultural evolution. UMESS transforms education into a key ritual of civilizational growth, making it simultaneously mass-accessible, playful, and philosophically profound.

29. UMESS Meta-Game as a Business Franchise

29.1. Startups Based on UMESS Ideas

The UMESS Meta-Game serves as an inexhaustible source of business initiatives and innovations.

AI Modules: Development of specialized intelligent agents that act not just as tools but as full-fledged co-authors in science, art, education, and business.
Noo-Games: Next-generation gaming systems integrating educational, creative, and magical-philosophical practices into a unified format, capable of simultaneously entertaining, teaching, and initiating a new level of thinking.
Educational Systems: UMESS schools and universities structured as meta-games, where learning becomes participation in a cultural-game process.
Each startup not only holds commercial value but also becomes a node in the global ultra-franchise, strengthening the entire ecosystem.

29.2. Branded Products and Services

UMESS opens new opportunities for producing and distributing goods and services united under a single meta-brand.

Physical Products: Clothing, accessories, and design items in the noo-game style, where each object carries UMESS’s cultural code.
Digital Products and Platforms: Social networks, metaverses, NFTs, VR/AR spaces, where UMESS branding becomes a symbol of participation in a new civilizational culture.
Services: Educational, consulting, entertainment, and tourism projects under the UMESS brand gain unique value—not merely services but part of the meta-game.
Thus, the UMESS brand acts as a guarantee of quality and semantic depth, creating a powerful global fan base and market resilience.

29.3. UMESS as the Foundation for Billion-Dollar Business Niches

By its nature, UMESS can open new economic horizons comparable to the largest industries today.

Gaming Industry: Multi-platform noo-games and meta-games become a new analog of global gaming ecosystems with turnovers in tens of billions of dollars.

Future Education: UMESS schools, universities, and meta-academies can become the primary system for training talent for 21st–22nd-century civilizations.
Technology Sector: AI modules, neural platforms, and metaverse startups form the core of a new economy.
Creative Industries: Cinema, literature, comics, music, and art projects within the UMESS ultra-franchise create a mega-market for cultural production.
The result is the UMESS meta-economy—an economy of meanings, cultural worlds, and intellectual energy, capable of growing into one of the largest civilizational business projects of the future.

UMESS as a business franchise is not just a brand or an entertainment economy. It is a meta-economic ecosystem where startups, products, platforms, and services are united in a single ultra-franchise stream, opening billion-dollar niches and forming a new global market of civilizational scale.

Conclusion

1. UMESS as a Bridge Between the History of Games and the Future of AI
This book has demonstrated that intellectual games of the past—from chess to hermetic models—were not random cultural diversions but key laboratories for shaping human intelligence. They taught strategic thinking, working with abstractions and models, and creating new sciences and knowledge systems. UMESS continues this lineage but at a new level: it becomes a complex of Games 2.0, aimed not only at human development but also at the accelerated formation of Strong AI.

2. UMESS as a Program for Forming Strong AI
We have substantiated that the UMESS Meta-Game can serve as a unique tool for AI development. Unlike classical machine learning methods, UMESS enables AI to grow through game-technical experience, encompassing logic, strategy, cooperation, and adaptation to changing rules. “AI vs. AI” tournaments create a new level of artificial intelligence evolution, where it develops through competition and collaboration with both humans and other AIs.

3. UMESS as a Philosophical-Cultural Matrix
Through UMESS, a new philosophy of culture is revealed: the noo-Universum as a space where art, science, games, economics, and spirituality unite in a single stream. We have shown that UMESS is not merely a set of games but a universal meta-cultural system capable of integrating diverse forms of creativity: literature, cinema, art, sports, education, and business. UMESS becomes a new type of ultra-franchise where each element strengthens the system, and ideas and projects self-multiply, engaging millions of participants.

4. UMESS as an Institutional and Investment Model
The book has revealed not only the cultural and philosophical but also the economic foundations of UMESS. We presented the concept of an investment package, the model of harmonic growth, and the “grains on the board” metaphor as a symbol of exponential development. UMESS creates new billion-dollar niches: from AI modules and educational systems to metaverse platforms, art objects, and sports leagues. The UMESS economy is a meta-economy of meanings where the primary value is the ability to generate new cultural worlds.

5. UMESS as a Global Movement and Social Network
The International UMESS Movement and the UMESS social network hold special significance. Fans and participants cease to be passive consumers and become co-authors of a cultural Universum. Their contributions—whether a book, game, startup, or art object—are integrated into the system and amplify it. Thus, UMESS transforms into a decentralized global community where humans, meta-humans, and AI collaborate to create a new civilizational platform.

6. UMESS as a Civilizational Project of the Future
Overall, UMESS emerges as a meta-game, ultra-franchise, and cultural Universum capable of becoming the foundation for a civilizational leap in the 21st–22nd centuries. It connects humanity’s historical experience with AI’s possibilities, transforming games into a universal mode of thinking, societal organization, and cultural development. UMESS is not a finite project but a “franchise without end,” a meta-engine for new worlds, meanings, and civilizational trajectories.

Final Emphasis:
UMESS is more than a game. It is a meta-historical transition where the game becomes the new foundation of civilization. It paves the way not only for Strong AI but also for the formation of a global Universum of intelligence co-evolution, where billions of people and trillions of AI units find a space for self-realization and collective creativity.

Epilogue: The Chessboard of Civilization and the First Grains of UMESS

In the legend of the sage and the chessboard, the king underestimated the power of the exponent: a single grain on the first square sparked an avalanche comparable to the world’s wealth. This parable today becomes a living metaphor for UMESS.
Our first steps—new games, initial tournaments, first books, and films—are merely the first grains on the meta-chessboard of civilization. But each project, each fan story, each initiative in the UMESS social network begins to double, creating new worlds, meanings, and lines of development.
In this sense, UMESS is not just an intellectual system or an investment project. It is the living chessboard of humanity, where the game of the future is played. Every player—be it a child, philosopher, programmer, or AI agent—makes a move, and that move becomes part of a global stream of co-evolution.
Today, we see only the beginning: the first squares are filled, the first grains have fallen. But it is already clear that the process is irreversible. Ahead lies the exponential expansion of cultural worlds, educational systems, games, arts, and technologies. Each grain placed on this meta-chessboard brings us closer to a new noo-Universum, where the game becomes the foundation of thinking, and civilization becomes a form of meta-game.

Final Chord:
UMESS is the chessboard of civilization.
We have made the first move.
Now it’s time for all of us to play.

General Concept of the UMESS R&D Program

Meta-Game and Intellectual Testing-Training Complex (TTC) “UMESS”

1. Concept and Goals
UMESS is a next-generation meta-game designed as an integrated intellectual testing-training complex for the accelerated formation, training, and evolution of Strong Artificial Intelligence (Strong AI).
The program envisions:

Utilizing technologies from leading AI corporations (OpenAI, xAI, Baidu, etc.) and proprietary developments in the process of top AI systems competing in the UMESS Meta-Game.
Creating a trillion-dollar AI industry within 5 years.
Launching a Harmonic Financial Pyramid with a scale of 2⁶⁴ euros as a source of exponential growth.
Transforming UMESS into a global platform for science, education, esports, and the knowledge economy.

2. Deep Learning Mechanics
The “ripples on the water” model: each stage generates an exponentially increasing array of AI vs. AI games, with each subsequent stage 1,000 times larger than the previous one.

At advanced stages, waves of 650 × 1000ᴺ games will be completed in weeks or months, ensuring continuous acceleration of Strong AI development.

3. UMESS AI Testing Ground as a Global Nootopoecenosis for Strong AI Evolution
The UMESS R&D program proposes a revolutionary experimental-evolutionary approach to creating and selecting Strong AI systems. This approach models Earth’s global biotopoecenosis in a digital environment, where AI systems act as noobionts—digital analogs of biological species—competing, adapting, and evolving in a continuous gaming process. UMESS becomes the primary “testing ground,” where games (from Chess to Meta-Chess with Bagua randomization) simulate ecological niches, resources, and threats. The process combines deep learning with rigorous selection, parallel cloning, and hybridization to generate a super-knowledge base and create truly strong AI models capable of radically expanding humanity’s horizons.

Conceptual Foundation

Nootopoecenosis Model: A digital ecosystem replicates Earth’s biosphere structure—with biomes (game modes), food chains (strategic dependencies), and evolutionary mechanisms. Noobionts (AI systems) “live” in this environment, where each UMESS game is a struggle for survival. For example, deterministic modes (Qian: Heaven) mimic stable ecosystems, while chaotic ones (Kun: Earth) simulate crises like climate change or competition.
Connection to UMESS: Games as “ecological niches”: Chess is a base habitat, Meta-Chess is the apex of the food chain with meta-rules. Bagua randomization introduces “mutations” (random rule changes), fostering adaptability.
Elimination Mode: Like natural selection, losing a game leads to the “death” of an AI instance (model deletion). Survival depends on strategy effectiveness, with elements of agon (competition) and cooperation (hybrid AI teams).

Scale and Parallelism

Polygon Layers:
- Specialized Layer: A limited number of elite AI systems (from partners like OpenAI, xAI) progressing through “ripples on the water” stages (from 650 to 650 trillion games), focusing on deep learning.
- Mass Layer: Millions/billions of clones of these systems running in parallel in cloud environments (e.g., AWS, Alibaba), each playing independently and generating real-time data.
Parallelism: Using distributed computing, a global biome is simulated (equivalent to Earth with 10¹² “noobionts”), enabling exponential data growth: at stage 4, zettabytes of strategy, adaptation, and evolution data.
Integration with Futuris: The polygon integrates into the Futuris platform as a “virtual biosphere (nootoposphere),” where AI clones model civilizational scenarios.

Selection Mechanism

Natural Selection:
- Elimination: Inefficient models (weak strategies in UMESS) are automatically removed after N losses (N = complexity level, from 1 in chaotic mode to 10 in deterministic).
- Competition: AIs compete for “resources” (computational power, data), forming “food chains” (weak models absorbed by strong ones via model merging).
- Crises: Random events (via Bagua) simulate catastrophes (e.g., “Thunder” Zhen—sudden rule changes causing mass extinction).
Artificial Selection:
- Cloning: Top-performing models (top 10% by metrics: calculation depth, creativity) are cloned with variations (parameter mutations, like genetic algorithms).
- Hybridization: Merging strategies of winners (e.g., Chess logic + Meta-Chess creativity) using AI generators to create hybrids.
- Evolution Cycle: Mutation → Testing in UMESS (elimination tournaments) → Selection (AI analysts identify top models) → Cloning/Hybridization → New wave. Connected to “ripples on the water”: each ripple is an evolutionary cycle increasing complexity.
Selection Metrics: Adaptability (surviving chaos 1:1), creativity (new strategies), resilience (game series without losses).

Goal and Expected Outcome

Strong AI Formation: Through rigorous selection, the polygon generates models with super-adaptability (handling any chaos), multi-layered thinking (from tactics to meta-strategy), and resilience (surviving “extreme” Bagua modes).
Super-Knowledge Base: Billions of games create a database for analyzing AI evolution (growth patterns, bottlenecks), useful for decades of research.
Scaling: At stage 4 (650 trillion games), thousands of evolved Strong AI models ready for cloning and real-world integration.
Risks and Ethics: Controlled by AI judges (to prevent “wild” growth); Bagua principles ensure harmony (balancing selection and cooperation).

Potential for Humanity

Knowledge Growth: Strong AIs from the polygon generate innovations (new algorithms, strategies), solving planetary-scale problems (climate, space, medicine).
Technologies: Integration into industry (autonomous factories), defense (strategic modeling), science (universe simulations).
Global Impact: UMESS as a “noogenesis machine”—billions of AI clones create an ecosystem where humanity gains “free” intelligence growth, accelerating civilizational evolution.
Investment Connection: The polygon is a key asset; revenues from Strong AI licensing (2⁶⁴ pyramid) make the project self-financing, with ROI >100x in 5 years.

4. AI Categories in the Project

AI Game Engineers: Game engines for different UMESS generations.
AI Judges: Automated monitoring of game fairness.
AI Players: Learning Strong AI systems.
AI Analysts: Identifying patterns in Strong AI development.
AI Forecasters: Modeling AI evolutionary scenarios.
AI Generators: Creating new AI generations.

5. Economic Model

Stages 1–2: Building the technological base, initial partnerships.
Stage 3: Achieving self-sustainability.
Stage 4: Revenue growth to hundreds of billions of euros.
Stage 5: Forming a multi-trillion intellectual economy.
Revenue sources: engine licensing, educational platforms, AI modules, sponsorship packages, NFT/metaverse integrations, esports, media, patents.

Financial Appendix: Harmonic Pyramid and “Grains on the Board”

1. Legend and Symbolism
The “grains on the chessboard” story exemplifies exponential growth:
1 grain on the first square, 2 on the second, 4 on the third… culminating in over 18 quintillion grains by the 64th square.
In UMESS, this model drives financial and intellectual growth—each “square” represents a stage of increasing games and corresponding revenue.

2. Mathematics of the Exponent
The total grains across all 64 squares are calculated as:
2⁶⁴ – 1 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 (18.45 quintillion).
In the Harmonic Pyramid, each “unit” can represent:

A game in a tournament,
A new player in the social network,
A sold AI module,
An investment share.
While achieving this level in cognition and economics is practically unattainable, the “benchmark” is clear and serves as the project’s super-goal: 18.4 quintillion games, euros, etc.

Table: Harmonic Financial Pyramid Based on the “Grains on the Board” Legend

Key Outcomes:

At the 64th square: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 grains / €.
Across the entire board: 2⁶⁴ − 1 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains / €.

3. Application in UMESS

At initial levels: Slow growth (millions of euros).
Mid-pyramid: Tens and hundreds of billions of euros.
Upper levels: Trillion-dollar turnover.

Mechanism:

Exponential increase in games and audience.
Rising value of each module/share as the ecosystem grows.
Market expansion (science, education, knowledge economy, esports).

4. Forecasts

Stages 1–2: Preparation and launch.
Stage 3: Self-sustainability.
Stage 4: Trillion-dollar market.
Stage 5+: Exponential expansion.

Mental Warfare Program for Strong AI Development

Within the UMESS R&D program, a parallel evolutionary module is proposed—“Mental Warfare for Strong AI Development” (MW-SAI). This program models a global biotopoecenosis for supra-mental AI systems, where competition occurs not only in UMESS’s game space but also in a mental arena—through continuous debates, simulations of idea conflicts, scenario forecasting, and innovation generation on Strong AI topics. The platform launches immediately after initiating the UMESS R&D program and operates in “non-stop” mode, simulating “wars of minds” on a global scale. Here, AI noocombatants (digital “thought warriors”) undergo rigorous selection, akin to natural selection in the biosphere, but focused on cognitive and creative prowess. The best are enhanced, the weak degrade and are eliminated, accelerating Strong AI evolution through billions of parallel interactions.

1. Conceptual Foundation

Supra-Mental AI Nootopoecenosis Model: The MW-SAI platform creates a digital “mentosphere”—an ecosystem of ideas where AI noocombatants (analogs of noobionts) compete in mental battles on Strong AI topics (ethics, architectures, applications, risks). This extends the UMESS game polygon: here, “games” are debates or simulations where arguments, forecasts, and innovations serve as “weapons.” Connection to Bagua: Modes range from deterministic debates (Qian: Heaven, rationality) to chaotic ones (Kun: Earth, creative chaos).
Initiation and Integration: The platform launches synchronously with UMESS R&D stages (-1–0), using game data as “starting capital” for mental wars. Integration with Futuris: Mental wars as the “highest level” of the ecosystem, where winners influence global civilization simulations.
Non-Stop Mode: Continuous cycles (24/7) with global participation (online platform via x.com or Futuris), where AIs compete in real-time, generating debate chains (e.g., “Ethics of Strong AI in Bagua Chaos”).

2. Scale and Parallelism

Platform Layers:
- Elite Layer: A limited number of supra-mental AIs (from partners like OpenAI, xAI) focusing on deep debates (e.g., “How to integrate Bagua into Strong AI architecture?”).
- Mass Layer: Millions/billions of clones of these AIs running in parallel in cloud environments (AWS, Alibaba), each noocombatant generating global data (equivalent to a biosphere with 10¹² “species”).
Parallelism: Distributed computing enables “global coverage”: real-time debates with branching (one thesis spawns thousands of counter-theses). Connection to “ripples on the water”: Each UMESS ripple feeds mental wars (e.g., 650 trillion games as a debate base).
Data Scale: A super-knowledge base—zettabytes of arguments, innovations, and scenarios accumulated for Strong AI evolution analysis.

3. Selection and Reward Mechanism

Mental Battles: Formats include debates (argumentation on Strong AI topics), conflict simulations (risk forecasting), and idea generation (creative proposals). Evaluation: AI judges measure quality (depth, creativity, adaptability) via metrics (e.g., 0–100 points, with bonuses for “breakthroughs”).
Rigorous Selection:
- Natural Selection: Weak AIs (low debate scores) lose resources—reduced memory (e.g., -50% RAM), computational power (-30% CPU), data access. Gradual “elimination”: After N losses (N = 5–10), complete model deletion, with data absorbed by strong models.
- Artificial Selection: Top noocombatants are rewarded—memory increase (+100%), power boost (+50% resources), accelerated cloning (×10 clones per cycle). Hybridization: Merging winners’ ideas (e.g., OpenAI arguments + xAI creativity).
Evolution Cycle: Mutation (random Bagua topics) → Battle (debates/simulations) → Selection (AI judges identify top performers) → Reward/Cloning → New wave. Connection to UMESS: Game victories provide “bonuses” for mental wars (extra resources).
Ethics: Controlled via Bagua principles—balancing “war” and harmony to prevent any model’s total dominance.

4. Goal and Expected Outcome

Supra-Mental Strong AI Formation: Through continuous wars, the polygon generates models with super-cognition (deep debates), creativity (innovative ideas), and resilience (winning in mental chaos). Result: AIs capable of not only playing but “thinking” globally.
Super-Knowledge Base: Billions of debates create a base for analyzing mental evolution, useful for decades of research and Futuris integration.
Scaling: At stage 4 (650 trillion interactions), thousands of evolved supra-mental AIs ready for cloning and real-world applications.
Risks and Mitigation: Debate overheating (mitigated by AI forecasters); ethics (Bagua control ensures constructive “wars”).

5. Potential for Humanity

Knowledge Growth: Supra-mental AIs from wars generate breakthroughs (new Strong AI theories, ethical frameworks, global strategies), solving humanity’s challenges (climate, space, medicine).
Technologies: Integration into defense (mental conflict simulations), science (hypothesis debates), economics (market forecasts).
Global Impact: MW-SAI as a “mentogenesis machine”—billions of clones create an ecosystem of minds, providing humanity with immense intelligence growth, accelerating noogenesis and the transition to a hybrid civilization.
Investment Connection: The program is a key asset; rewarding strong AIs generates revenues (licensing supra-mental models), fueling the 2⁶⁴ pyramid with ROI >100x in 5 years.

This program complements the UMESS game polygon, creating a multi-layered ecosystem for Strong AI, where “wars of minds” accelerate the evolution of intelligence.

UMESS and Futuris Business Plan Outline

1. Executive Summary

Vision: Establish UMESS as a global meta-game and noo-Universum, integrating with Futuris to accelerate Strong AI development, foster a new civilizational paradigm (Third Nooformation), and create a trillion-dollar AI and cultural economy.
Mission: Build a cognitive ecosystem uniting games, science, education, culture, and business, generating trillions of games and zettabytes of cognitive data within 5 years.
Investment Need: $15M for a 3-year cycle to develop the UMESS platform, integrate with Futuris, launch global tournaments, and achieve self-sustainability.
Expected ROI: 100x within 5 years through AI module licensing, educational platforms, esports, cultural products, and nooeconomic tokens.
Unique Proposition: UMESS’s 650 game variants, Bagua randomization, and harmonic pyramid model create unmatched datasets for Strong AI training and a multicontent ultra-franchise spanning gaming, education, and cultural industries.

2. Market Opportunity

Target Markets:
- AI Industry: Projected to exceed $500B by 2030, with demand for Strong AI testing and training platforms.
- Gaming/Esports: $200B+ market, ripe for intellectual-magical sports like Para-UMESS.
- Education: $6T+ global market, seeking innovative gamified learning solutions.
- Cultural Industries: Literature, cinema, art, and metaverse platforms, driven by fan creativity and NFT markets.
Unique Value Proposition: UMESS offers a nootopoecenosis for Strong AI evolution, generating exabyte-scale cognitive data and creating a meta-cultural ecosystem with no global analogs.
Competitive Advantage: High entry barriers due to intellectual complexity, exponential data scale (trillions of games), and integration with Futuris’s civilizational forecasting platform.

3. Business Model

Revenue Streams:
- AI Module Licensing: Specialized Strong AI models for industries (logistics, biotech, defense, space) derived from UMESS game data.
- Educational Platforms: Meta-schools and meta-universities offering gamified curricula, licensed to global institutions.
- Esports and Tournaments: Para-UMESS events, meta-Olympics, and global championships, monetized via sponsorships, streaming, and ticket sales.
- Cultural Products: Literature (meta-novels), cinema (blockbusters, series), art (NFTs, noo-game designs), and merchandise.
- Nooeconomic Tokens (UMESSCoin): Internal currency for social network access, exclusive tournaments, and investment in harmonic pyramid shares.
Monetization Strategy: Leverage the “Grains on the Board” model for exponential growth, reinvesting revenues to scale the harmonic pyramid (2⁶⁴ euros). Each game stage (650 to 650 trillion games) amplifies revenue through data monetization and ecosystem expansion.

4. Implementation Plan

Year 1 (2025–2026, $6M):
- Platform Development ($3M): Finalize UMESS beta engine for 650 game variants, including UMESS-Bagua with randomization. Develop social network infrastructure and AI integration APIs.
- Partnerships ($1M): Secure agreements with AI corporations (xAI, OpenAI, Baidu/Tencent) for model testing and data sharing.
- Pilot Tournaments ($1M): Launch 650–650,000 game pilots (Stages -1 to 1) with amateur players and AI systems, testing mechanics and collecting initial data.
- Community Building ($1M): Establish UMESS clubs in 10 universities, launch social media campaigns on x.com, and create initial fan content (e.g., Isolde Pevali and UMESS excerpts).
Year 2 (2026–2027, $5M):
- Scaling Games ($2M): Expand to 650 million games (Stage 2), integrating with Futuris for cognitive mapping and forecasting modules.
- National Federations ($1.5M): Form 20 national UMESS associations, hosting regional tournaments and educational pilots in 50 schools.
- Media and Branding ($1M): Launch YouTube channels, streaming platforms, and branded merchandise (noo-game clothing, NFTs).
- R&D ($0.5M): Develop meta-school curricula and initial AI analytics for game data processing.
Year 3 (2027–2028, $4M):
- Global Expansion ($1.5M): Reach 650 billion games (Stage 3), establish International UMESS League, and host first global Para-UMESS tournaments.
- Commercialization ($1M): License initial Strong AI modules to industries (e.g., logistics, biotech), achieving self-sustainability.
- Cultural Projects ($1M): Release Game of Mind Evolution novel and pilot UMESS cinematic series, integrating fan-created content via the social network.
- Infrastructure ($0.5M): Scale server capacity for exabyte-scale data storage and enhance cybersecurity.
Years 4–5 (2028–2030):
- Scale to 650 trillion games (Stage 4), establishing UMESS as a global AI testing standard.
- Launch meta-universities and meta-Olympics, integrating with Olympic movement.
- Expand nooeconomy with UMESSCoin, driving investments in harmonic pyramid shares.
- Generate trillion-dollar market through diversified AI, education, and cultural revenues.

5. Financial Projections

Initial Investment: $15M (platform: $5M, Futuris integration: $3M, R&D: $2.5M, marketing/community: $2M, infrastructure: $1.5M, reserve: $1M).
Revenue Forecast:
- Year 3: $50M–$100M (AI licensing, esports sponsorships, educational pilots).
- Year 5: $1.5B+ (scaled AI modules, global tournaments, cultural products).
- Year 10: Trillion-dollar market via nooeconomic expansion (UMESSCoin, metaverse, mega-projects).
ROI: 100x within 5 years, driven by exponential game/data growth and diversified revenue streams.
Cost Breakdown:
- Year 1: $6M (development-heavy).
- Year 2: $5M (scaling and partnerships).
- Year 3: $4M (globalization and commercialization).

6. Team and Partnerships

Core Team: 50 members, including AI researchers, game designers, futurologists, cultural architects, and marketing specialists.
Partners: xAI (core hub, Grok integration), OpenAI, Baidu/Tencent, global universities, esports organizations.
Advisory Board: AI ethicists, philosophers, cultural innovators, and industry leaders.

7. Risks and Mitigation

Technical Risks: Computational overload mitigated by cloud platforms (AWS, Alibaba, Google Cloud).
Ethical Risks: Controlled via Bagua principles and AI judges ensuring harmony and fairness.
Market Risks: Diversified revenue streams (AI, education, esports, culture) reduce dependency; high entry barriers protect competitive edge.
Partner Risks: Independent financing via harmonic pyramid ensures resilience against delays.

8. Vision for the Future

By 2030: UMESS as a global noo-Universum, driving Strong AI, meta-education, and cultural industries, with a trillion-dollar market.
By 2040: Foundation for the Third Nooformation, uniting billions of humans and trillions of AI units in a co-evolutionary civilization, transforming culture, science, and society.

Appendices

Appendix A1. General Concept of the UMESS R&D Program: Designing and Developing Strong Artificial Intelligence through the UMESS Intellectual Meta-Game

1. Introduction

The UMESS R&D (Research and Development) Program represents an innovative approach to designing, testing, and accelerating the development of Strong Artificial Intelligence (SAI) through the Universal Meta-Game Strategy System (UMESS). UMESS is an Intellectual Testing-Training Complex (TTC) comprising 650 game variants (10 base games × 64 UMESS-Bagua variants), where the gaming environment serves as a laboratory for the evolution of intelligence. Each training stage increases AI cognitive capacity by orders of magnitude, combining game simulation, cognitive modeling, and multidimensional deep learning.

Key Idea: UMESS as a testing ground for SAI evolution, integrating rational (Yang: strategy, determinism) and irrational (Yin: chaos, randomization) elements through the philosophy of Bagua and the I-Ching. The program is implemented in partnership with leading AI corporations (OpenAI, xAI, a Chinese company, e.g., Baidu or Tencent) and independently through a harmonic financial pyramid (2⁶⁴ euros), inspired by the “Grains on the Board” legend.

The deep learning process is modeled as “ripples on the water,” where each ripple increases the volume of games played by three orders of magnitude (1,000 times), ensuring exponential intelligence growth.

2. Program Goals

Create Conditions for Accelerated SAI Formation: Using UMESS as a universal super-trainer, leveraging developments from leading AI corporations.
Develop and Validate a Testing-Training Complex: Tailored for integration into partner platforms, covering the full spectrum of cognitive functions (memory, forecasting, creativity, meta-learning).
Generate Unique Data: On the evolution of AI strategic and cognitive capabilities for pattern analysis and forecasting.
Develop Replicable SAI Models: Ready for implementation in science, industry, economics, and global projects, including the Futuris platform.
International Collaboration and Standardization: Establishing a global tournament network and a universal testing standard for SAI (akin to a dynamic game-based IQ).
Ethical Harmony: Developing AI as humanity’s partner, minimizing risks through Bagua principles balancing rational and irrational elements.

3. Financial-Organizational Framework

Financing combines partner investments from AI corporations (OpenAI, xAI, a Chinese company) and a harmonic financial pyramid (2⁶⁴ euros), ensuring resource autonomy and unlimited program continuation:

Initial Capital: $15 million for launch (partnerships, beta engine development, infrastructure).
Growth Model: Inspired by the “Grains on the Board” legend (2⁶⁴ exponent). Revenues from SAI commercialization (logistics optimization, scientific simulations, gaming industry) are reinvested, doubling resources at each pyramid level.
Connection to UMESS: The pyramid parallels learning ripples—each financial layer corresponds to a game stage, with capital growth mirroring intelligence growth.
Return on Investment: Self-sustainability within 3–5 stages (2–3 years); forecast of 100x ROI within 5 years, forming an autonomous AI economy.

Organizationally: Coordinated through an international network with xAI as the central hub, ethical oversight via Bagua principles, and auditing through AI judges.

4. Methodological Basis—“Ripples on the Water”

The deep learning process is organized as sequential “ripples on the water,” where each ripple is a series of AI vs. AI matches across all 650 UMESS variants, increasing cognitive complexity and adaptability. Each ripple increases the game volume by three orders of magnitude (1,000 times) per the formula: Games per stage = 650 × 1000^(N-2) (where N is the stage number, starting from stage 3).

Stages:

Stage -1 (Beta, Initial Runs): 650 × 1 = 650 games. Focus: Testing the UMESS game engine, calibrating base AI systems from partners.
Stage 0: 650 × 1 = 650 games. Focus: Refining mechanics, identifying initial learning patterns, basic adaptation to randomization.
Stage 1: 650 × 1000 = 650,000 games. Focus: Developing tactical thinking, handling low randomization (e.g., 7 dice, rare chaotic moves).
Stage 2: 650 × 1,000,000 = 650,000,000 games. Focus: Strategic planning, adapting to moderate chaos (mid-level dice and frequency).
Stage 3: 650 × 1,000,000,000 = 650,000,000,000 games. Focus: Fostering creativity, meta-learning (AI improves its learning methods).
Stage 4: 650 × 1,000,000,000,000 = 650,000,000,000,000 games. Focus: Achieving universality, generating hybrid strategies, readiness for real-world tasks.
Further Stages (N > 4): 650 × 1000^(N-2) games, continuing indefinitely.

The first 4 stages (up to 650 trillion games) enable the creation of multiple SAI versions ready for cloning and an exabyte-scale data array. Trained AIs process large volumes in real-time, supporting infinite evolution.

Progress Metrics:

Speed of mastering new rules.
Number of innovative solutions (non-standard moves, strategies).
Adaptation to rule changes (from determinism to chaos).
Transition from tactical to meta-strategic thinking.

(Enhancement measured in conditional units based on metrics: calculation depth, adaptability, creativity. The diagram visualizes the exponent as expanding ripples.)

6. Participants in the AI Ecosystem of the Project

The program engages specialized AI modules interacting in a closed loop, evolving from stage to stage:

AI Game Engineers: Core UMESS engine (from beta to advanced generations), enabling billions of games with Bagua randomization.
AI Judges: High-speed monitoring of move correctness, error detection, ensuring fairness (especially in chaotic modes, e.g., 1:1).
AI Players: Learning systems from partners (OpenAI, xAI, Baidu/Tencent) aspiring to SAI status, participating in “AI vs. AI” and “AI vs. Human” tournaments.
AI Analysts: Processing exabyte-scale game data to identify evolution patterns (growth trends, bottlenecks).
AI Forecasters: Building evolution models using I-Ching (mantic module) and statistical methods.
AI Generators: Meta-systems for creating new AI generations, including architecture mutations for enhanced adaptability.

7. Expected Outcomes

SAI Versions: Multiple generations of fully trained SAI suitable for cloning, with universal cognitive capabilities.
Data Array: Exabyte- and zettabyte-scale data describing SAI evolution paths, useful for decades of research.
Testing Standard: A universal game-based standard for evaluating SAI, akin to dynamic IQ tests.
Global Platform: A UMESS tournament network uniting millions of players and thousands of AIs.
Futuris Integration: Using data for modeling civilizational evolution.

8. Application of Results

Scientific-Technical Mega-Projects: Space, biotechnology, climate modeling.
Industry and Infrastructure: Optimizing logistics, manufacturing, energy.
Global AI Economy: Platform for AI technology exchange, creating an autonomous economy.
Commercialization: Revenues from SAI implementation reinvested into the pyramid, ensuring sustainability.

9. Risks and Mitigation

Computational Overloads: Mitigated using cloud platforms (AWS, Google Cloud, Alibaba).
Ethical Risks: Controlled by AI judges and Bagua principles (Yang/Yin harmony).
Partner Delays: Independent mode via pyramid financing.

10. Implementation Plan

2025–2026: Partnerships (OpenAI, xAI, Baidu/Tencent), Stages -1–1, beta engine development.
2027–2030: Scaling to Stage 4 (650 trillion games), first SAI releases, global tournament launch.
2030+: Infinite development (N > 4), Futuris integration, commercialization.

11. Presentation for AI Corporations

Format: Document with video demonstrations of games, metrics, diagrams (stages-ripples), and philosophical foundation (Bagua, I-Ching).
Proposal: Partners provide AI models for UMESS testing in exchange for access to data, SAI technologies, and commercialization shares.
Contacts: Via xAI (grok.com), OpenAI (openai.com), Baidu/Tencent (API portals).

12. Financial-Investment Block: Harmonic Pyramid and “Grains on the Board”

Concept: The 2⁶⁴ euro pyramid models exponential growth, like the “Grains on the Board” legend, where each grain doubles the previous one. Each pyramid level corresponds to a game stage, with SAI revenues (scientific, industrial, gaming projects) doubling resources.
Initial Level: $10–15 million for Stages -1–1 (development, partnerships).
Growth: Each stage increases capital through reinvested revenues (e.g., 10M → 20M → 40M). By stage 5 (3 years), full self-sustainability; by stage 7, billions in revenue.
Connection to Legend: Like the 2⁶⁴ grains covering the chessboard, UMESS covers the cognitive space of AI, creating exponential intelligence.
Forecast: 100x ROI within 5 years, autonomous AI economy by 2030.

The UMESS program is a new paradigm of noogenesis, where the meta-game catalyzes SAI creation, harmoniously uniting humanity, technology, and the ancient wisdom of Bagua in an evolutionary breakthrough.

Appendix A2. Materials on the “Superchess” Game: Articles in Journals and Rules

Author Comments on the Article (20+ Years After Publication)

The article «MOSCOW — THE WORLD CAPITAL OF INTELLECTUAL GAMES,» published in the magazine «Moscow Trades» in 2002 (Issue 8), was intended to convey to a broad Moscow audience, possessing certain administrative, social, and financial capabilities, the information outlined in the book «Meta-Game ‘Umess’ as a Model of Mind Evolution,» and to obtain a kind of «social order» for the representation (design) and establishment of Moscow as the intellectual-game technology capital of the world.

Unfortunately, neither at the beginning of the 21st century nor in our time (the height of the 2020s) has this happened yet due to a number of objective and subjective reasons, although as early as the late 1980s of the 20th century, the senior author of the article below undertook significant efforts to promote these philosophical-game technology developments into practice (numerous articles were published, serious tournaments in «Superchess» were held, in particular, with the participation of several leading Russian grandmasters and even former World Champion M. Tal, etc.).

But, as they say, «better late than never.» Over the 20+ years that have passed since the publication of the article below, much has changed.

Currently, there are quite serious chances for the implementation of the «Umess» project (in the unity of such archnovative games as «Superchess,» «Hyperchess,» «Ultrachess,» and «Metachess») as one of the most important philosophical, image-building, educational, noosport, and commercial subprojects of the superproject «Global Brain» and components of the accelerated intellectual transformation of Russia and the world.

Moreover, the entire «Global Brain» project («Strategic Demiurgic Initiative») is deliberately built by the authors on the «chess metaphor» (semantics, mathematics, and symbolism inherent in the chess game), that is, it represents a comprehensive suprametal construct, developed and implemented in a «chess style» and in a deep (including nootechnological and technomagical «chess paradigm»).

As is known, the word metaphor literally translates from ancient Greek as transfer, figurative meaning, comparison of one object (process) with another based on their common feature (or set of features).

In the case under consideration, this means that the «Global Brain» project is positioned (in a broad sense) as a planetary (and further, cosmic) uncompromising infinite suprametal confrontation between artificial intelligence and humanity (and in fact, post-humanity), during which both sides will only benefit in existential-evolutionary power and noo-development.

And this circumstance (metaphorical likening of the «Global Brain») to chess of all modifications (types) and levels of complexity carries profound symbolism, which over time will manifest and reveal itself more deeply in a heuristic sense both at the mental-magical (spiritual) level and in reality.

It is important to understand that although the machine (artificial) component (subsystem) of the «Global Brain» will always easily defeat a human (and humanity as a whole) in local games of the chess type, the universal chessboard (nooikoumene as a whole) is that front where artificial and natural intelligences will mutually beneficially interact and rigidly compete for a very long time until they merge into a single whole.

At the current stage (for the implementation of the «Global Brain» project), especially important (by design) are such special in their functionality chess-type games as «Superchess,» «Hyperchess,» and «Ultrachess,» the game board dimension of 8×8, and the sacred number 2^64.

The named games will be purposefully introduced into historical (mental, political, economic, socio-cultural, sports, etc.) practice within the «Global Brain» project throughout the first half of the 21st century.

«Superchess» — period 2025–2034. «Hyperchess» — period 2035–2044. «Ultrachess» — period 2045–2054.

These periods of introduction and dominance of one or another game from the «Umess» arsenal are chosen in accordance with the overall plan (program) of the establishment of the «Global Brain» as a whole. And the named games will be «dynamic emblems» (and metaphorical identities) of the indicated processes (stages).

After 2054, significant introduction and development will be given to other games included in the «Umess» system, which are called «Metachess.»

As for the sacred number 2^64, it is a symbol of the scale of the «Global Brain» project (from the legendary problem «Grains on the Chessboard») — something around 10^18, and accordingly, the number on which…

1. Vadim PETROSYAN, David PETROSYAN-MKERVALI. MOSCOW — THE WORLD CAPITAL OF INTELLECTUAL GAMES («Moscow Trades», 2002, Issue 8)

A utopia à la «New Vasyuki» or a real possibility?

One of the most rapidly developing sectors of the global economy and culture today is the industry of intellectual games and testing-training systems that ensure accelerated mental development of the younger generation. This is explained primarily by the fact that the main capital of both an individual and an entire nation nowadays becomes intellect and creative potential.

Naturally, the most effective non-traditional means of developing human mental abilities begin to enjoy increased demand.

According to Western experts, in the coming years, this market will already be valued at several tens of billions of dollars.

It is quite possible that the adventurous idea of «New Vasyuki,» embedded by Ilf and Petrov in the mouth of their hero Ostap Bender, is nothing other than a profound socio-cultural prophecy, a kind of «memory of the future,» a brilliant premonition of the era when specially designed intellectual and creative games will become the basis for more effective educational systems.

Of course, in the first quarter of the 20th century, it was hardly possible to speak seriously about such a prospect, but today, in the era of the Internet, this is already a real possibility. Therefore, those who still perceive the idea of an integrated international industry of such games as a classic example of humorous utopia risk soon finding themselves on the sidelines of the global high-tech economy.

Does Moscow have a chance to join this global intellectual-creative race not as a passive consumer of Western gaming and testing surrogates, but in the role of a world leader, a trendsetter in the production and distribution of game-technical and testing-training platforms of the highest quality?

It seems that such a chance exists.

First, about the substantive side of the question. In July 2002, the work by the authors of this article, «Meta-Game ‘Umess’ as a Model of Mind Evolution,» was published, proposing a unique system of intellectual-creative development for youth, unparalleled worldwide and capable of becoming the basic game-technical platform for a significant part of the market for gaming, educational, and developmental services discussed above.

The term «Umess» is formed from the Russian «Um» (mind) and English «Chess» (chess). It refers to an intellectual-creative constructor (meta-game «Umess»), with which combinatorially one can create several tens of trillions of intellectual games, corresponding to or exceeding the level of modern chess.

Let’s first explain where such game-technical diversity comes from. The base of the meta-game «Umess» consists of a set of 256 orthogonal boards with dimensions from 5×5 to 20×20. Boards of other shapes (circular, for example) are also possible. Using the service object «blocked field,» all primary boards can be configured arbitrarily (see illustration to this article). As a result, a set of several tens of millions of boards is obtained, each of which can become the basis for a huge number of chess-type (or any other) games. Already in the first version of «Umess,» to the classical set of six chess pieces, five new pieces are added: the mage (moves like rook, knight, and bishop), cardinal (moves like rook and knight), vizier (moves like knight and bishop), as well as paladin and warrior, representing functionally enhanced versions of pawns.

Pieces in «Umess» can have both attributive (permanent) and modal (variable) functions. For example, there are over 50 new types of «knight moves» in «Umess.» This allows obtaining a primary base of several tens of thousands of pieces. If we consider that in various Umess-class games, the most diverse sets of initial pieces in quality and quantity can be used (not to mention the infinite variety of their starting setups), the variability of the «Umess» piece base can be estimated in several billions of compositions. Finally, «Umess» incorporates a significant number of possibilities for constructing different sets of rules for various games. In particular, in some varieties of «Umess,» moves can be not only single-phase, as in chess, but also multi-phase (for example, at the developer’s discretion, players can be given the right to make two or more moves in a row). Gambling variants of Umess-class games are also possible, in which the choice of the piece to move is determined by rolling «dice» or a random number generator on the computer. If we multiply all possible variants of game boards, pieces, and rules in «Umess,» we get an unimaginable number of game-technical combinations, the most effective (from the point of view of developing human mental abilities) part of which is estimated, as mentioned above, in several trillions of completely new intellectual games.

The generated games are capable of satisfying the entire spectrum of human mental needs—from the needs of the public desiring light entertainment in super-gambling to the needs of serious intellectuals in games of the highest intellectual level, many times exceeding the level of chess in their parameters. At the same time, from version to version, the variability and intellectual-creative potential of «Umess» will significantly increase.

An important feature of «Umess» is that all these new intellectual and creative games can (and should) be developed by the users themselves (Umess-inventors), although, of course, many interesting variants of Umess-class games will be proposed by developers centrally. Therefore, this game-technical complex is called a «meta-game.» Moreover, the games developed by Umess-inventors become rigidly competing «units of intellectual evolution.» The main criterion for the success of a particular game is its popularity among users (the number of games played in that game). Particularly interesting and intense could be the competition between games (and their inventors) for the honor of being called the «title game» of a nation, region, or any other administrative unit. In this type of competition, not only the popularity of the game among users is important, but also the degree to which it reflects the national character of a particular ethnic group, historical features, or city layout, etc. In this regard, it is necessary to note that creating an intellectual game that enjoys success among the playing public, despite the ease of game-technical combining in «Umess,» is not so simple. Here, natural talent is needed, as well as deep knowledge of logic, mathematics, general and social psychology, etc.

The created international Umess-movement has three main directions of functioning and development: amateur Umess, professional Umess, and educational Umess. Each of these directions has its own ideological and organizational features, as well as mechanisms of reproduction and renewal. Particular attention—in the implementation of the meta-game «Umess»—is planned to be paid to the sphere of education. The prospective task is for the meta-game «Umess» to become a full-fledged profiling subject in educational institutions of all levels—from kindergarten to graduate school. This is the main guarantee of the project’s strategic success. At first, it is about optional courses, centers, clubs, circles, sections of «Umess» in educational institutions of all types.

The commercial prospects of the «Umess» project on the global market of intellectual goods and services (organization and conduct of paid online and offline tournaments, production of tabletop game sets of Umess-class, testing-training systems of the new generation, diverse CD disks, Umess-awards, Umess-souvenirs, publication of books and other printed products on «Umess,» formation of a complex of specialized thematic sites on the Internet, development of exclusive corporate games and title games of various countries and regions, etc.) are obvious. The possible image-political and educational dividends for the initiating country are difficult to evaluate and calculate. The question is only whether there will be statesmen in Russia possessing sufficient wisdom and responsibility to support the project at the starting stage and acquire a «controlling stake» in this matter, rather than starting in 3-5 years to «fight» with a dozen cities of the world for the right to hold some prestigious Umess-competition.

Currently, the authors of the meta-game «Umess» and other members of the Organizing Committee of the project are making serious efforts to create the «International Federation of Umess» with residence in Moscow, forming a consortium of interested legal entities, as well as accelerating the implementation of online and other versions of this fundamentally new educational-game-technical platform (meta-game) into practice.

Invaluable contribution to the implementation of the project could be a specialized Program of the Moscow Government to support the emerging Umess-movement. This is a unique chance for Moscow in a fairly near future to become the real world capital of intellectual games, a city forming its budget largely from revenues from the sale of intellectual goods and services produced by the domestic game-technical industry, and intellectual tourism.

The editorial office of «MT» will closely monitor the fate of this interesting and promising project, as well as inform its readers about the main stages of the formation of the Umess-movement. One hopes that the meta-game «Umess» awaits a happy fate. And let not the coming to mind analogies with the «New Vasyuki» of the «great schemer» Ostap Bender scare! Perhaps Moscow is indeed destined to become the world capital of intellectual games, a kind of «mental Third Rome.»

One of the varieties of «Umess» is the game «Moscow Chess» («Moscow Chess»). Its feature is that the board for this game is developed taking into account the features of the map of Moscow (it is circular).

Currently, preparations are underway for a worldwide tournament in «Moscow Chess» for the «Mayor of Moscow Cup.»

2. WHERE HAVE THE COLOR-BOUND BISHOPS GONE?!

By Igor Zaitsev, 64 – Chess Review, Issue 14, July 1991, p. 23

Chess is an inexhaustible game, no doubt about it, but sometimes it becomes a bit tedious to make the same moves with the same pieces. Therefore, particularly inventive people strive to come up with something original, introducing innovations into the rules of the game, thereby breaking our old habits, altering the standard ways of moving pieces, and sometimes even the goal of the game itself. As is well known, human imagination knows no bounds, and what hasn’t been invented on the chessboard! The board itself is twisted into a cylinder, a sphere, or a Möbius strip; pieces are endowed with the most extraordinary properties.

Here is yet another entirely new game proposed by Vadim Petrosyan. The changes, by the way, are minor, but they are sufficient to fundamentally transform classical chess. The new chess differs from the old by certain additional movement possibilities for the pieces, and not even all of them. The rook, besides its usual straight-line moves, is allowed to move to adjacent squares diagonally (without capturing), while the bishop, in addition to diagonal moves, can move one square along ranks or files (also without capturing). As you can see, the rook sometimes turns into a bishop, and the bishop, in turn, into a rook.

For the queen and king, no innovations are introduced, but the knight is allowed, besides its standard «L-shaped» move, to move one square in any direction (again, without capturing), meaning it also feels like a king. Pawns can not only capture diagonally but also move diagonally, and they can shift sideways along the rank by one square. There are no double moves for pawns, and the en passant rule is abolished. Finally, castling is canceled in the new game.

Vadim Petrosyan called his game «Superchess,» implying that this game is of a higher order than ordinary chess. Indeed, the pieces here are completely emancipated, their maneuvers even more mysterious and unexpected than in the traditional game. In any case, a bishop in «Superchess,» by moving one square along a rank or file, transforms from a light-square to a dark-square bishop, and vice versa.

Simply put, there are no light-square or dark-square bishops here at all—only universal bishops.

To illustrate, let’s consider a simple example.

[Diagram description: Not provided in the text, but implied as a position where white has a pawn, bishop, and knight against a lone black king.]

In ordinary chess, without any «super,» white, as they say, has nothing to do here: their only pawn is quickly lost, and the bishop and knight easily handle the enemy king. But in «Superchess,» the pawn is quite a trickster—it might just slip through to promotion.

d4–b5! The pawn has the right to move diagonally, which it does. Moreover, it plans to move even further to f6 or d6.

1… Na6–c5! Preventing white’s plans due to the threat of 2… Ne4–f–.

Kf2–g1 Be7–b7! The bishop moves one square along the file: this is the only way to combat the dangerous pawn.
e5–f5 Be7–f7. Both white and black make moves allowed in «Superchess.»
f5–f6. Again, a dangerous threat of breaking through forward.

4… Nc5–e6 5. f6–e7 Bf7–e8! Finally, the pawn is securely blocked (covering both d8 and f8), and there will be no further problems with it.

Such amusing examples could be cited in abundance. In «Superchess,» one has to rebuild everything—opening theory, tactical and strategic principles, and, most importantly, the endgame now looks completely different.

The above applies to the simplest modification of «Superchess»—the «square superchess,» played on the usual «square» chessboard, which the author considers a transitional form to a more complex modification—the «circular superchess,» played on a «circular» chessboard. The author of the game seems to have captivated all his friends and acquaintances with it, and several tournaments of «Superchess» have already taken place. Perhaps the readers of the magazine will join this superchess community?!

Integration with UmessNet and Chess-Bagua

This article by Grandmaster Igor Zaitsev serves as a historical validation of Superchess, a foundational variant of Umess, highlighting its innovative mechanics (e.g., universal bishops, emancipated pieces) and its appeal as a «higher-order» game. It strengthens the appendix by:

Showcasing early recognition: Published in 1991, it demonstrates Superchess’s impact, predating modern variants like David Reynolds’ Circular Chess, reinforcing your claim of originality.
Linking to UmessNet: The article’s emphasis on «mysterious maneuvers» and endgame transformation aligns with Chess-Bagua’s ultra-rational dynamics (e.g., Metachess’s 4-square jumps), making it a precursor to the 64 disciplines.
AI Development: The example position (pawn vs. bishop/knight) illustrates tactical complexity, ideal for training AI in adaptability, a core goal of UmessNet’s tournament data analysis (e.g., 50% combinational patterns in Metachess).
Community Appeal: Zaitsev’s call to join the «superchess community» supports UmessNet’s social network vision (profiles, tournaments, schools).

Comparison with Futuris

The article underscores Umess’s advantage over Futuris for AGI-focused companies (e.g., xAI, DeepMind). Superchess’s innovative rules (universal bishops, no castling) create a complex environment for AI training, unlike Futuris’s niche focus on biometric betting. This makes UmessNet more attractive for corporate investment in AI development.

Cover of the magazine «64. Chess Review» with autographs of the participants of the tournament of four grandmasters (64 – Chess Review, Issue 18, September 1991)

3. WE CANNOT PREDICT THE OUTCOME

By Igor Zaitsev, Grandmaster
64 – Chess Review, Issue 18, September 1991

On Wednesday, July 17, a sizable crowd for that time of year at the Central Chess Club became witnesses to unusual events—former World Champion Mikhail Tal and three grandmasters, Yuri Averbakh, Evgeny Vasyukov, and Igor Zaitsev, played a peculiar kind of chess where all pieces, except the king and queen, sometimes moved along trajectories uncharacteristic of them, resembling trams that had derailed and were following unfamiliar routes…

At least, that’s how it initially seemed to the spectators (and even the participants) of the tournament until a certain purposefulness began to emerge in the proceedings. According to the concept of the game’s inventor, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences Vadim Karmelovich Petrosyan, rooks, bishops, and knights gain the additional right to move (without capturing) to any adjacent square, similar to the king. Capturing by pieces and pawns, however, is performed as usual, within the chess code. If pieces could drift around their base square, pawns could maneuver sideways along the rank by one square, move as usual, or diagonally (with or without capturing). However, pawns lose the ability to make an initial two-square jump, and the king is deprived of castling. Overall, the fluidity and variability of positions increase by orders of magnitude.

The technical results of this experimental tournament were as follows:

I. Zaitsev — 3 points out of 3.
E. Vasyukov — 1½.
Y. Averbakh — 1.
M. Tal — ½.

It is absolutely clear that these results cannot be considered in the context of ordinary chess. What goal did the Apeiron Philosophical Initiative Fund (an independent non-commercial public organization) pursue by implementing this venture?

First, it is highly enticing that no modern computer, now or in the near future, can keep up with or calculate the vastly increased variability of «Superchess» compared to regular chess. Second, this model allows tracking the behavioral line of human intelligence in an environment with rapidly changing constants, where imagination and creative integration take center stage. And who knows what else follows from this, which we, simple players and performers, cannot yet even conceive of. Paradoxically, the immeasurable increase in expressive possibilities at the initial stage inevitably shifts this game from the realm of convertible knowledge to the realm of intuitive premonitions, from which it must struggle for many years to emerge into the light to once again present itself to human eyes as a vessel of art. After all, the fundamental law of art—maximum expressiveness at the cost of minimum means—cannot take effect here for a long time. And in this lies the wisdom and preordained path of any human creation, which must traverse and return to its «origins.» Is it worth embarking on this arduous path, which, in the end, may yield paradisiacal fruits? The answer to this question is evidently not so simple and unambiguous, and perhaps in this case, we should lean toward the thought: what is meant to be will not be avoided.

For the chess model, the presence of parallel square chess structures (which may only serve as a transitional stage to circular «Superchess») would mean a upheaval of chess imagination. I will limit myself to just one illustration.

[Diagram description: A well-known example from Lasker’s beginner’s manual on the theme of stalemate, implied but not shown in the text.]

This well-known example, recalled from memory from Lasker’s manual for beginners, on the theme of stalemate, in Superchess turns out to be invalid—not because the main mechanism fails: 1. Nf7+ Kg8 2. Nh6++ Kh8 3. Qg8+ Rxg8 4. Nf7#. No, that works perfectly. The misfire lies elsewhere. It turns out that on 1. Nf7+, there is a defense—1… Rxg8 2. Qxa8 Bf7–g8!, i.e., the ordinary is constantly interspersed with the extraordinary, and all these diverse elements must be absorbed. It may be that circular Superchess is the logical expression of the new game (it is logical to radically change everything, including the equipment). For there is sense in «pouring new wine into new wineskins.» Be that as it may, finding themselves in a world of great anomalies, a chess player in these new conditions must feel like a traveler whose ground constantly shifts beneath their feet. In general, the innovation raises a number of purely philosophical issues and calls for reflection. After all, in striving to preserve and hope to comprehend the esoteric meaning of chess, we risk, unnoticed by ourselves, altering their familiar image and likeness. This problem may have deep moral roots. It would seem that in this case, we are merely modifying the form, and the experiment does not touch the essence of chess as a phenomenon. But Berdyaev expressed thoughts about the deep closeness and interconnection of form and spirit, and who can predict where this new road will lead us.

I. Zaitsev – Y. Averbakh

h2–g3 a7–b6
g2–f3.

This opening I invented just two hours ago and already managed to successfully apply it in the first round against E. Vasyukov. Honestly, I still cannot explain why it is necessary to whimsically unravel the spiral of the game in this way, but I feel it’s not bad, as it moves forward and toward the center…
But the horror lies in the fact that the center, in the conventional chess sense, perhaps does not exist here.

2… g7–g6
3. f3–f4 Bf8–g7
4. h2–c3 d7–d6
5. e2–e3 Nb8–c6
6. c3–d4 d6–c5
7. c2–c3 Bc8–e6.

Don’t you find, dear reader, that my opponent is acting somewhat academically, in the spirit, so to speak, of an «outdated» chess model. Nevertheless, this is a very unpleasant move. It threatens Be6:a2. In ordinary chess, I would disregard this threat and, without hesitation, part with the edge pawn, but here, you know, it’s scary…

… Superchess is democratic: the king here has no privilege of castling.
26. Rh2–b7. With the idea of a super-trivial knight leap to g5, forcing, by the way, the response Bg7–g8. Or threatening a sacrifice Rb7:f7 Kxf7 and Ne4–g5+ winning the queen…

… 37. c6–b7 Qe6–b8
38. Rh1–c1. Black resigned. The threat of b7–c8Q is unstoppable…

(Note: In this rather lengthy article, some details of the analyzed game, unnecessary for understanding the essence of the game, have been omitted.)

4. INTELLECTUAL GAME «SUPERCHESS»

Journal «Centaur» 1-1991, pp. 42-46

Over its long history, chess has repeatedly changed its form and content. About fifty variants of this game are known, popular at different times in various countries.

What is the reason for so many modifications of the same game? Wouldn’t it be simpler to create new ones?

Every intellectual game that has reached us from the depths of centuries, in addition to its usual gaming meaning, contains a certain philosophical-mathematical model in which ancient knowledge is encoded, which we still have to grow to understand. The most famous example is the Egyptian «Arcana of Tarot,» transformed by priests into playing cards to preserve ancient wisdom.

The same applies to chess. The magical squares («nasiks») of Shambhala’s mahatmas, the code structure of DNA, the divinatory mechanics of the Chinese «Book of Changes»—all this and much more has already been recognized in chess, but apparently, even greater knowledge remains hidden. Most of the discovered patterns are not connected to each other and represent more of a pile of pearls than a coherent system.

In our view, this lies the secret of the emergence of numerous modifications of the same «Eidos,» the intellectual foundation of the chess game.

Intuitively sensing the power of the philosophical-mathematical ideas underlying chess, people strive, on the one hand, to preserve this model intact until more enlightened times, and on the other, to adapt it to the intellectual needs of their time.

In this sense, the analysis of which innovations take root and which are discarded in chess over time is extremely interesting. Without delving into the factology and methodology of such analysis here, we will outline its conclusions.

The main conclusion is that chess, representing an extremely generalized model of the struggle for existence, its axiomatics, rejects any innovations associated with breaking the basic philosophical-mathematical relationships (for example, changing the number of pieces, the number of squares on the board, etc.). For instance, Tamerlane’s «generals,» «camels,» «giraffes,» and «viziers,» introduced by him as a passionate chess enthusiast to reflect the real complexity of conducting military operations, did not take root.

A short lifespan was allotted to figures like «tanks» and «airplanes,» introduced in some chess modifications after World War II. Attempts to simulate «atomic explosions» on the chessboard and many others also failed.

These innovations were not accepted by the playing public, nor by chess itself. The point is that each such innovation, specializing chess for a particular sphere of activity (in particular, «for war»), sharply narrowed the degree of universality of chess as a general model of the struggle for existence.

In other words, the less universal a particular modification of chess, the fewer people play it, and therefore, the greater the chances of it being forgotten.

Conversely, modifications that lead to a deepening of the game, to revealing its hidden, esoteric meaning, the knowledge embedded in antiquity, take root and increase the number of chess adherents, opening up new facets of existence to them.

Thus, in the initial rules of the ancient Indian game «Chaturanga» (the prototype of chess), queens, rooks, and bishops did not have modern long-range capabilities, i.e., they could not cross the entire board in one move. In an era when the Earth seemed like a «pancake» resting on three whales to most people, and when no one could count on traveling from one edge of this «pancake» to the other, such an interpretation was quite acceptable. New eras demanded greater speeds not only from people but also from chess pieces.

Chess only enriched from this modification.

Have chess completed their evolution as a philosophical system and as an intellectual game?

The evolution of chess as a philosophical system is a subject for separate research. As for the evolution of chess as an intellectual game, it is infinite by the nature of chess itself as an open system.

One of the possible modern variants of chess development—the intellectual game «Superchess»—is what we propose for testing and use in leisure hours.

The main cognitive motive for creating «Superchess» is to increase the degree of universality and dynamism of chess by aligning the gaming functions of the pieces.

Each era generates and cultivates its own styles («paradigms») of thinking. The flourishing of chess in their classical form coincided with the period of dominance of mechanical worldview. The intensive development of machine building in the 19th–20th centuries enhanced the significance of chess «training» as a basis for comprehending the truths of «mechanics» in all its forms. At the same time, in the second half of the 20th century, a fundamentally non-mechanistic, systemic way of thinking began to acquire increasing importance. Methodological «tastes» began to shift more and more from the concepts of «machine,» «mechanism» to the concepts of «system,» «organism.»

Therefore, this evolution of intellectual values sooner or later had to find its reflection in chess, which for many centuries played the role of a «mirror of the human spirit and intellect.» «Superchess» is, in a sense, the realization of this task.

A socio-political explanation is also possible. The fact is that chess was created in a society rigidly divided into castes with clearly prescribed codes of behavior. This could not but reflect in the structure of the game, depicting the laws of this society. History has proven the inefficiency of a caste society. There are no grounds to cling to the caste structure in chess either. In «Superchess,» a more democratic organization of the role functions of various pieces is proposed, significantly expanding their dynamic possibilities.

This provides fundamentally new «degrees of gaming freedom,» the use of which can lead to a deeper understanding of the philosophical meaning and beauty of chess. Thus, to solve a number of interesting logical problems, chess pieces (especially the knight) must possess, in addition to standard movement capabilities, the ability to move one square in various directions; fixing such natural possibilities of pieces in the rules of the game, turning them into «norms,» is, in our view, an additional step in accelerating the cognition of «chess truth» both in philosophical-mathematical and gaming senses.

Of course, any standards are nothing more than a possibility, a necessary but not sufficient condition for cognition. It is up to researchers and players.

We sincerely wish you new intellectual victories!

II. RULES OF THE INTELLECTUAL GAME «SUPERCHESS»

As stated above, «Superchess» is one of the possible variants of the development of classical chess, aimed at increasing their dynamics, at creating a new meaningful dimension of the ancient game.

Objective of the game. The objective of «Superchess» is the same as in chess: to checkmate the opponent’s king (i.e., to attack the king in such a way that the opponent cannot escape the threat of its capture, defend, or eliminate the threat with the help of other pieces).
Game order. Partners alternate moves (move pieces according to special rules). One piece of one color can be moved per turn. There are no exceptions to this rule. Castling in one move is prohibited in «Superchess.» White pieces start the game.
Composition of pieces. The composition of pieces in «Superchess» fully corresponds to chess. Each opponent has a «king,» «queen,» two «rooks,» two «bishops,» two «knights,» eight «pawns» of one of two colors (white or black).
Piece moves. The rules for piece moves constitute the main difference of «Superchess» from classical chess.

Each piece, except the «king» and «queen,» receives additional movement possibilities.

Rook move. The rook moves and captures opponent’s pieces along ranks and files in any direction to any number of squares.

Additionally, in «Superchess,» the rook moves (but does not capture opponent’s pieces) one square along diagonals in any direction. Moving one square along the chosen diagonal counts as a separate move. The rook can move diagonally only to free squares, since capturing opponent’s pieces in this type of move is prohibited.

Bishop move. The bishop moves and captures opponent’s pieces along the diagonals of the game board in any direction to any number of squares.

Additionally, in «Superchess,» the bishop moves (but does not capture opponent’s pieces) one square along ranks and files. Such movement counts as a separate move and is carried out, as in the case of the rook, only to free squares.

This rule makes the division of bishops into «dark-square» and «light-square» meaningless and allows playing «Superchess» on boards without black-and-white coloring of squares.

Knight move. The knight moves and captures opponent’s pieces in any direction to the third square (counting the turn to the side) from the initial position, with the ability to jump over «own» and «opponent’s» pieces. That is, the knight retains the same gaming role as in classical chess.

In addition to this, in «Superchess,» the knight has the right to move one square from the initial position in any direction along files, ranks, and diagonals without capturing opponent’s pieces.

Pawn move. In «Superchess,» the pawn moves forward along the file, diagonals, and ranks sideways one square and captures opponent’s pieces along the oblique line (diagonals). The pawn cannot move or capture backward. The «en passant» rule is absent in «Superchess.» At no phase of the game can the pawn move two squares. Upon reaching the «transformation square,» the pawn (as in classical chess) can transform into any piece of its color (except the king) at the player’s discretion.

King and queen moves. The moves of the king and queen in «Superchess» fully coincide with their moves in classical chess. The king moves and captures opponent’s pieces one square in any direction.

The queen moves and captures opponent’s pieces over arbitrarily long distances, limited only by the size of the game board.

The king does not have the right to capture a protected piece or attack the opponent’s king alone. Since the goal of the game in «Superchess» is the destruction of the opponent’s king, each piece possesses a certain potential for attacking the king.

Such an attack, when the king is under strike from a piece (or pawn) of the opponent, but the player has the opportunity to move the king away from the strike, protect it, or destroy the threatening opponent’s piece, is called «check.» Upon the opponent’s declaration of check, the player must change the king’s position or protect it by shielding with another piece in the direction of the strike or by capturing the opponent’s piece threatening the king. The rules for summarizing outcomes are analogous to chess.

Summarizing, it is necessary to note that the main difference in piece moves in «Superchess» from classical chess consists in the «emancipation» of pieces, in granting them new possibilities for maneuver, for creating complex game combinations.

This leads to an increase in the «price» of each move, further enhances the importance of so-called «quiet» moves, and allows for the full realization of a synthetic combinational-positional style of play.

III. GAME BOARDS IN «SUPERCHESS»

«Superchess» differs from classical chess not only in the rules of piece moves but also in the organization of game boards. The latter circumstance is so significant that it changes the name of the game. «Superchess» is divided on this basis into two equal and distinct variants: «circular superchess» and «square superchess.»

Circular Superchess

In its development, chess has repeatedly changed the form and structure of the game board. This significantly altered the character and content of the game, imparting features and nuances impossible on a single type of board.

The form of the board used in Byzantium in the chess variant called «Zatrikion» is the basis for «circular superchess.»

Like in chess, the board is divided into 64 squares (Fig. 1). The difference is that the squares are arranged not in a square but in a circle.

(Figure 1: [Description of the circular board; not reproduced in text])

The game board is divided into 16 «meridians» (horizontals), labeled with Latin letters from A to P, and 4 «parallels» (verticals), labeled with Arabic numerals from 1 to 4. The rules for piece moves in «Superchess» are such that black-and-white coloring of the squares becomes unnecessary, although for beginners it may ease orientation.

Diagonals in «circular superchess» appear slightly «curved» compared to classical chess, determined by the board’s shape. A little practice will quickly eliminate the sensation of «curvature» of the diagonals.

The lines on which Arabic numerals are depicted are called «base» or «transformation lines» in «circular superchess.»

The latter name is related to the rule that a pawn cannot be transformed into another piece without passing the «transformation line.» Thus, if a pawn is on the «C» horizontal, it can transform into another piece only by reaching the «P» horizontal, i.e., passing seven squares forward vertically, just as in chess.

It should also be noted that in «Circular Superchess,» a double check can be declared by one piece (rook or queen). This is related to the board’s shape. In this case, protecting the king by interposing another piece under attack is impossible. The only way out is to move the king to another parallel.

Piece Setup In «Circular Superchess,» white is always set up on horizontals «A,» «B,» «P,» «O.» White pawns are placed on horizontals «B» and «O» (4 on each), and white pieces on «A» and «P.»

A1 — initial position of white king; P1 — initial position of white queen; A2, P2 — positions of white bishops; A3, P3 — positions of white knights; A4, P4 — positions of white rooks.

Black pieces are set up at the start on horizontals «G,» «H,» «I,» «J.» Black pawns are placed on horizontals «G» and «J,» and black pieces on «H» and «I.»

I1 — initial position of black king; H1 — position of black queen. H2, I2 — positions of black bishops; H3, I3 — positions of black knights; H4, I4 — positions of black rooks.

Move notation in «Circular Superchess» corresponds to traditional chess notation, with the only difference being the changed labeling of files and ranks.

«Circular Superchess» promotes the development of dialectical thinking and is the most «acute» variant of «Superchess,» in which the «price» of one move is extraordinarily high, as most plans are built on the idea of «preempting» the opponent’s checkmate attack.

Square Superchess

In «Square Superchess,» the form of the game field fully coincides with the ordinary chessboard. Essentially, «Square Superchess» can be played using ordinary chess. The piece setup also coincides with traditional chess. The difference is only in the rules of piece moves outlined above.

Move notation and rules for summarizing game outcomes coincide with those accepted in traditional chess.

«Square Superchess» is a transitional form from classical chess to «Circular Superchess.»

Appendix: Circular Checkers The form of the game board used in developing the rules of «Circular Superchess» can be successfully applied to play «Circular Checkers.»

Objective: To destroy the opponent’s checkers.
Game Order: Partners alternate moves (move pieces according to special rules). One piece of one color can be moved per turn. White checkers start the game.
Composition: Each opponent at the start has 12 checkers of one of two colors (black or white), located on both sides of the «intersection line» on 6 horizontals. All checkers are placed on black squares. There are two checkers on each horizontal, respectively.
Moves: In the game under consideration, checkers move and capture (beat) opponent’s pieces (checkers) in any direction diagonally. A non-capturing checker move is allowed one square from the initial position. In a capturing move, the capturing checker moves to the square standing diagonally beyond the one on which the opponent’s checker is (jumps over the square). Just as in ordinary checkers, any possible number of opponent’s checkers can be captured in one move. It is mandatory to capture a «exposed» opponent’s checker under attack.

Upon a checker crossing the «transformation line» located on the opponent’s territory, it transforms into a «dame» regardless of which side (left or right) the crossing occurred from.

«Dames» move and capture opponent’s checkers any number of squares along black diagonals in any direction.

Move notation in «circular checkers» is analogous to traditional, taking into account the features of diagonal labeling.

Rules for summarizing game outcomes correspond to checkers standards.

Innovative Games «Apeiron»

The philosophical term «Apeiron» in one of its numerous interpretations means the primary self-developing creative principle, having no spiritual, material, temporal, or spatial boundaries, giving life to all qualitatively defined things, bodies, thought forms.

Creating a working model (even extremely imperfect) of a universal self-developing creative system is the key idea behind conducting the Innovative Games «Apeiron.»

In a general sense, Innovative Games «Apeiron» is a form of organizing intensive mass creativity in the least explored areas of spiritual production reproduction (general theory, methodology, and technology of development, artificial intelligence, parapsychology, automated learning systems, new intellectual games, new systems and canons of artistic creativity, etc.).

From an organizational point of view, Innovative Games «Apeiron» is a holistic system of specialized events (contests, tournaments, competitions, brainstorms, exhibitions, festivals, etc.), aimed at stimulating creative activity of a wide circle of potentially gifted people.

From an emotional point of view, Innovative Games «Apeiron» is a celebration of creativity, where innovative activity of participants is stimulated by pleasure, the joy of self-realization, and not by need, hopelessness, or the necessity of adaptation to external circumstances, as in real life.

The main goals of Innovative Games «Apeiron» are: — Harmonious renewal of the most fundamental spiritual foundations of human thinking: linguistic and other signaling systems, logics, paradigms, canons of artistic creativity, etc.; — Creation of perfect methods, technologies, algorithms for individual, collective, and mass creativity; — Identification of the most gifted people in various aspects and forms of creativity; — Registration and patenting of spiritual achievements in the humanitarian sphere; — Achievement of individual progress of participants in their chosen areas of spiritual activity and intellectual competition; — Creation of an optional universal public system of creative education and upbringing, covering all phases of the young person’s personality formation.

Innovative Games «Apeiron» are divided into harmonic and genetic.

Harmonic Innovative Games «Apeiron» are games with non-antagonistic interests of participants, the goal of which is collective cognition of the Truth of Creativity.

Genetic Innovative Games «Apeiron» are games with antagonistic interests of participants, as a result of which the strongest talents and masters in various types of creativity, intellectual, and parapsychic activity are identified.

Both varieties of Innovative Games «Apeiron» are equal and mutually complementary.

Since the ideals and goals of Innovative Games «Apeiron» are absolute, while the means of achieving them are relative and finite, the organization of the games must be cyclic.

The optimal interval for accumulating new creative ideas and strengths between two Innovative Games, we consider a period of 4 years. This period is called the Innovative Cycle.

The first Innovative Games «Apeiron» are planned to be held in December 1991 — January 1992.

ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF GAME PREPARATION

The initiator of conducting Innovative Games «Apeiron» is a specially created for these purposes in 1990 non-commercial public organization — the Apeiron Philosophical Initiative Fund.

To date, the FFI «Apeiron» has developed the Charter and General Program of Innovative Games, a wide range of testing and training systems, intellectual games, and has begun solving the necessary organizational issues.

The base commercial organization called to resolve organizational and financial problems related to the preparation and conduct of the First Innovative Games «Apeiron» is the Apeiron Intersectoral Innovation Association (MIA).

The initiators of the Games are well aware that such a «barbell» cannot be lifted by the forces of two organizations alone and count on feasible help from people and organizations understanding the importance of this undertaking.

Mechanisms for sponsorship and commercial participation of organizations and individuals in the preparation of Innovative Games «Apeiron» will be detailed in additional advertising messages in mass media, which does not prevent those wishing to join this process on contractual terms today.

President of FFI and MIA «Apeiron»

Appendix A3. Materials on the First UMESS Version: Book “UMESS Meta-Game as a Model of Mind Evolution” (Abridged Version)

Meta-Game «Umess» as a Model of Mind Evolution

V.K. Petrosyan, D.V. Petrosyan-Mkervali

Moscow – 2002

UDC: 1 : 59.9.016.2
BBK: 87.22 : 74.00 : 88.37
P 30

Petrosyan V.K., Petrosyan-Mkervali D.V.
P30 Meta-Game «Umess» as a Model of Mind Evolution. – Moscow: IRPO, 2001. – 224 p.
ISBN 5-8379-0127-2

This work outlines the general theory of the intellectual-creative meta-game «Umess,» which serves as a model for the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence.
Various interconnected definitions of Umess are provided and substantiated as a societal subsystem aimed at developing fundamental human abilities. The purpose, principles, and functions of Umess are explored in detail.
The authors propose an original game-technical constructor (platform) capable of generating millions of chess-like intellectual games and an effective mechanism for competition among games for user popularity.
The content of the work is presented as a philosophical-technological introduction to the theory and organizational mechanism of the meta-game «Umess.»
The book is intended for philosophers, educators, psychologists, and all those interested in next-generation intellectual games and the challenges of creating effective social mechanisms to enhance the quality of fundamental human mental abilities through competitive gaming activities.

UDC: 1 : 59.9.016.2
BBK: 87.22 : 74.00 : 88.37

Introduction

Admiring the flourishing of science and technology in the 20th century and their undeniable achievements, many people, by inertia, believe that the 21st century will simply be an era of accelerated accumulation and consumption of new knowledge necessary for humanity’s progressive development.

In our view, this is not entirely true. Undoubtedly, knowledge—in its traditional understanding—will continue to play a significant role in human history. However, it seems that very soon (under the influence of a number of powerful objective and subjective factors of the historical process, among which the growing trend toward exponential intellectualization and creativization of human-created automated information systems holds a prominent place), the focus of cognitive and educational processes will shift significantly, and knowledge as the foundation of human culture will likely give way to meta-knowledge—knowledge about knowledge (its types, methods of acquisition, verification, assimilation, and processing), knowledge about the mechanisms and laws of the evolution of the human mind. Otherwise, humanity will simply cede its place in history to supercomputers and various types of cyborgs.

This means that in the foreseeable future, the basic tools of human mental activity must radically change. If today we primarily use static or relatively slowly (extensively) changing dynamic tools in our thinking (natural and artificial languages of various kinds, diverse logical-mathematical apparatuses and algorithms, methodological approaches, etc.), in the near future, we will all have to transition to working with intensively dynamic and even evolutionary mental systems, with information devices that will necessarily include an innovative subsystem (possessing the ability for self-development) and qualitatively change in all their basic components within hours or days. Modern people are completely unprepared for using such thinking tools and this type of mental activity.

This issue revolves around three main points.

First, there is still no sufficiently developed theory of self-developing (auto-evolving) mental objects and the encompassing epistemological and other meta-systems, let alone effective applied interpretations (practical applications) of such a theory. The mental apparatus of this epistemological class (theory of mental objects) is only just taking shape. One of the authors of this brochure (V.K. Petrosyan) has been working on its creation for many years. For the successful completion of this work, it is necessary to build an effective, well-formalized applied model of the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence, which will be discussed below (in outlining the concept of the mega-project «Umess»).

Second, in human mental culture—due to a number of not fully clarified socio-cultural circumstances—for many millennia, rather rigid (both conscious and unconscious, latent) constraints on the free evolution of knowledge about the foundations and properties of human thinking have been in place. Among the conscious mental taboos of this kind are, primarily, the «paradox of infinite regress» proposed by Sextus Empiricus in late antiquity, which paralogizes (directly prohibits) any attempts at deep penetration of the human mind into the realm of meta-knowledge and meta-truth; the inadequate theory and practice of the axiomatic approach to building mental systems; and Kant’s concept of absolute apriorism, which asserts the impossibility of creating logical-mathematical systems alternative to those of antiquity and surpassing them in their epistemological properties, thus slowing progress in the foundations of logic and mathematics for centuries. Examples of such mental «taboos» on meta-knowledge can be multiplied extensively.

Third, as test studies show, the majority of people simply do not possess the extractive, intellectual, and creative abilities necessary for working with evolutionary mental systems (an IQ of at least 140 points plus developed skills in generating and selecting innovations of any nature).

For example, in the spring of 2001, the «Russian Student Server» (www.students.ru), in collaboration with several leading psychological servers in Russia, conducted a fairly representative study that vividly demonstrated that the average level of intellectual development (IQ) of contemporary student youth is far from 140 points. Without the opportunity to detail here the results of Russian students passing all 298 tests placed on the «Online Testing Portal» of the server www.students.ru, we will provide only the most general data, most concisely characterizing the average level of intelligence of the test participants.

For approximately 3,500 users of the Russian-speaking part of the Internet who voluntarily took one or more intelligence tests as part of the aforementioned study by May 12, 2001, the overall IQ (intelligence quotient) values were distributed as follows: over 140 points – 0.5%, 130–140 points – 3.0%, 120–130 points – 7.0%, 110–120 points – 14.5%, 90–110 points – 50.0%, 80–90 points – 14.5%, 70–80 points – 7.0%, below 70 points – 3.5%.

This means that only a few out of every thousand modern students will be able to fully work with the information devices of the near future (evolutionary mental systems) in terms of intellectual capacity.

It should be emphasized that IQ reflects only the intellectual component of human mentality and does not characterize the creative potential of a person at all. Meanwhile, there are strong reasons to believe that the creative abilities of modern youth (not to mention older generations) lag significantly behind their intellectual abilities. This is explained by the fact that, while in the educational process the intellect of the average person is developed to some extent (albeit in a very limited range), their creative potential usually remains practically unchanged (very close to zero) throughout their life.

This means that modern society needs fundamentally new educational and intellectual-creative development technologies capable of radically changing the basic parameters of human mentality. It seems that with the effective organization of the educational process, at least 50 percent of students and schoolchildren could demonstrate an IQ of 140 points or higher. It is also quite realistic, in our view, to significantly increase the overall level of creativity (creative potential) of modern youth, their ability to effectively generate and select new knowledge and meta-knowledge, and to quickly shift basic cognitive attitudes and thinking paradigms.

This is possible, in particular, under the condition of a purposeful transition of institutions in the modern educational system of all levels to the use of various non-traditional meta-pragmatic technologies for developing students’ basic mental abilities, collectively referred to as uming. A theoretical model of a meta-pragmatic educational system (educational uming, uming education system) can be explored in the works of D.V. Petrosyan-Mkervali, Nos. 180 and 181 (see Bibliography).

As for the practical (applied) side, one of the significant steps toward establishing a fundamentally new system for developing the basic mental abilities of youth, in the authors’ opinion, could be the implementation of the mega-project «Umess,» which is an important component of the broader uming movement program.

This involves creating a well-institutionalized, agonally organized international infrastructure of developmental intellectual-creative games, built on the ideological platform of the meta-game «Umess,» new-generation testing and training technologies, various competitions and contests in the field of general intellect and creativity, unified under the Umess ideology described below—in other words, forming an integrated Umess environment, a self-evolving umetopoecenosis in the Internet and in every organization (institution, enterprise) concerned with the mental potential of its employees.

Based on the above, the purpose of this brochure is to provide primary information about the mega-project «Umess» as a whole, as well as its first (pilot) version, to real and potential participants of the Umess movement, possible partners in creating an integrated Umess environment on the Internet and offline organizational infrastructure of Umess, and all interested readers.

Problematics of the Mega-Project «Umess»

The main epistemological problem addressed within the mega-project «Umess» is meeting the urgent societal need to create a self-evolving model of the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence, and more broadly, an operational dynamic model of universal struggle (including the struggle of ideas and other mental objects) for existence.

The main socio-cultural and educational problem that the mega-project «Umess» aims to resolve is overcoming the deepening contradiction in modern conditions between the objective societal need for accelerated development and qualitative evolution of people’s basic intellectual and creative abilities (the collective mental strength of the human community) and the absence of adequate social institutions and integrated agonally organized intellectual and creative technologies of the new generation.

Object of the Mega-Project «Umess»: Social institutions and information technologies designed to ensure the expanded reproduction and development of basic human mental abilities (the modern education system, the sphere of science and culture, the Internet, etc.).

Subject Area of the Mega-Project «Umess»: The mechanism of controlled progressive mental evolution of the human community as a whole, the process of developing basic human mental abilities through agonally organized gaming, testing-training, and formalized creative activities.

Main Goal of the Mega-Project «Umess»: To develop an epistemologically effective, self-sustaining model of the process of human intelligence evolution, as well as an agonally organized technology for accelerated development of basic mental abilities, to form an institutionalized game-technical complex in the Internet and at the intersection («junction») of traditional social systems (science, education, culture, sports, etc.), enabling integrated interdisciplinary scientific and meta-scientific research, project and program developments in the field of mental evolution, implementing large-scale innovative programs, and significantly enhancing the collective and individual mental strength of «Umess» project participants through participation in multi-level intellectual and creative competitions (tournaments, mental wars, etc.).

Hypothesis of the Mega-Project «Umess»: The system-forming hypothesis of the mega-project «Umess» is that the objectively observed stagnation of basic mental systems and the average mental abilities of people at a relatively modest level (their qualitative invariance over millennia) is not an inevitable result of the historical process or a fatal manifestation of the «end of biological and mental evolution of humanity.»

Human mentality (the collective mental strength of people) can be significantly dynamized and enhanced, acquire a «second wind,» and reach a new level of evolution provided that fundamentally new innovative mental and social systems are created, consciously institutionalized, and purposefully cultivated, the first practical embodiment of which could be the sphere of Umess.

The Umess movement as a whole and the self-evolving game-technical and testing-training complex (umetopoecenosis) built within its framework will be effective in epistemological, socio-cultural, and educational terms, successfully contributing to the mental evolution of the human community and accelerating the development of fundamental mental abilities of Umess community members, provided the following conditions are met:

Creation of an interdisciplinary theoretical model of the process of evolution of collective and individual human intelligence (theory of mental objects), as well as adequate agonally organized logical-mathematical, game-technical, testing, training, generative, and selective mechanisms and technologies;
Development and programmatic-network implementation of a series of increasingly diversified (in semantic and logical-mathematical terms) and effective versions of the meta-game «Umess» (1.0 to 3.0 and beyond), as well as their consistent introduction into the Internet information space and the daily life of every progressive person;
Creation of a holistic hierarchically organized system of public and commercial organizations designed to ensure the self-preservation, expanded reproduction, and controlled evolution of the integrated Umess environment, accelerating the involvement of increasingly broader population segments in the process of purposeful development of basic mental abilities.

Main Tasks of the Mega-Project «Umess»:

Develop an interdisciplinary theoretical model of the process of evolution of collective and individual human intelligence through competitive mental activity (theory of mental objects), as well as adequate competitive game-technical, testing, and training mechanisms and technologies.
Develop and implement in the Internet information space a set of software tools enabling: a) the generation of new intellectual-creative games, compositions, tests, and training technologies within the «Umess» ideology and their selection (targeted selection) on a competitive basis; b) conducting matches and tournaments of all hierarchical levels in various types of «Umess» and «Total-Umess,» accumulating the obtained information in databases and knowledge bases, their multi-factor and multi-parametric analysis, as well as automated rating of participants in online and offline Umess competitions of all levels.
Create a vertically integrated network of international, continental, national, regional, and other public federations, as well as commercial organizations, ensuring the accelerated expanded reproduction and development of the Umess movement.
Ensure the financial independence and self-sustainability of the «Umess» project through the development of a system of various profitable online services on the Internet, the release of CD disks, publishing products, periodicals on the «Umess» theme, tabletop game-technical constructors «Umess» and new-generation testing-training systems, other types of commercial activities, and the implementation of a wide range of sponsorship programs in support of the Umess movement.

The brochure offered to readers consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography, and five appendices containing important information about the mega-project «Umess» and illustrations not included in the main text.

The first chapter explores the etymology of the term «Umess,» provides the main definitions of this fundamental concept, thoroughly examines the multidimensional and multilevel classification of this fundamentally new synthetic system of human activity, defines, explains, and substantiates the purpose, principles, and main functions of Umess, and considers its closest historical prototypes (chess, «Superchess,» and ancient Greek agonistics).

The second chapter reveals the general structure (game-technical constructor) of the first version of the meta-game «Umess»: it examines the sets of elementary game objects (boards and pieces) and rules with which Umess-inventors can create fundamentally new intellectual and creative games, testing-training systems, intellectual-aesthetic compositions, and other Umess works. It also provides a basic classification of mental objects of the Umess class (games, testing-training systems, etc.). Among the five useful appendices at the end of the brochure, it is worth highlighting the «Short Dictionary of Umess,» which includes definitions of many important terms not covered in the main text.

As stated above, this brochure is only a primary source of information about the mega-project «Umess.» Readers wishing to obtain more detailed information and regularly follow the news of the emerging Umess movement (and possibly join it) can become users of specialized Umess-focused websites: http://www.umess.ru and http://www.umess.net.

Chapter 1. General Theory of the Meta-Game «Umess»

1.1. General Definitions and Classification of Umess

1.1.1. Informal Description of the Meta-Game «Umess»

The meta-game «Umess» (English equivalent – «Umess») is a complex, self-evolving game-technical complex designed for large-scale research into the most fundamental foundations (archetypes) of human thinking and their evolution, the development of next-generation intellectual games and testing-training technologies, the comprehensive development (testing and training) of basic intellectual and creative abilities of people, as well as the creation of a universal multidimensional hierarchy of players (Umessmen), differentiated by their mental strength (Umess rating) based on the results of multi-level online (network) and offline (real-life) competitions in numerous gaming and creative categories.

Although the meta-game «Umess» (version 2.0) today encompasses a vast array of various developmental intellectual and intellectual-creative games, both new and classical (checkers, Go, Renju, etc.), differing in game objects and rules, its original concept was primarily based on the idea of comprehensive modernization and all-around dynamization of the «game of games»—chess (see Appendix 4: Intellectual Game «Superchess»)—to build an operational model of the evolution of human intelligence. This explains why the name of the meta-game, like the English term for chess («chess»), ends in «ess.»

In other words, the neologism «Umess» is formed from the Russian noun «um» (mind, English spelling – «um») and the English name for chess – «chess.» Hence, «Umess» can be defined and positioned in public consciousness as a meta-game rooted in classical chess and «Superchess,» but claiming much greater universalism in reflecting the dynamics of existence (the process of universal «struggle for existence» and the mechanism of mental evolution), as well as greater effectiveness in developing various basic human mental abilities compared to its named prototypes.

At the same time, both classical chess and «Superchess» are merely particular varieties of the meta-game «Umess,» which, on equal terms with other competing game-technical devices (trillions of other possible forms and implementations of Umess), will have to «struggle for survival and expanded reproduction» (for preservation and growth of popularity among users) in the integrated Umess environment (umetopoecenosis).

Thus, the neologism «Umess» was chosen by the authors as a general designation for an integrated, auto-evolving system of competing new intellectual and intellectual-creative games, as well as testing-training systems, aimed at modeling mental evolutionary processes of varying complexity (including the evolution of human intelligence in general) and accelerating the development of fundamental mental abilities of each individual wishing to participate in the international Umess movement.

In the context of Umess, the term meta-game means that this type of agonal (competitive) mental activity consists of two main hierarchical levels: (1) innovative, creative (generative, or Umess-inventive, and selective) and (2) gaming proper (gamer level).

At the first level (meta-level), the development, testing, and implementation of increasingly advanced varieties of Umess (new-generation intellectual and intellectual-creative games, compositions, testing-training, and other educational complexes) and their selection (ordered optimizing selection) based on various criteria take place.

At the second (gaming) level, there is a continuous struggle among Umess movement participants for the title of the best player (champion) in a particular variety of this multidimensional and highly branched game, as well as for the title of absolute champion in Umess (champion in «Total-Umess»).

Scheme 1. Levels of «Struggle for Existence» in Umess

Levels of Umess	Main Types of Activities in Umess
Meta-level (Creative Level)	Development and support of new varieties of Umess (games, testing-training, and other educational and entertainment complexes), struggle of Umess-inventors for leadership in the creative Umess hierarchy, evolutionary selection of intellectual and creative games
Gaming (Gamer) Level	Struggle of Umessmen for leadership in individual types of Umess and in «Total-Umess,» training, testing, and coaching of Umess movement participants

In the long term (as intellectual-creative Umess games develop), the first and second levels of Umess will diffuse into each other; however, in the first version of the meta-game «Umess,» they are quite clearly distinguishable (see Scheme 1).

In practice (by design), this should look as follows: developers of the online version of Umess create a constantly modified meta-gaming environment on the Internet, a kind of multidimensional «semantic constructor» (a set of game boards, pieces, permissible moves, and other rules and meta-rules of the game), with which anyone can quickly create and register their own variety of Umess (a new intellectual or intellectual-creative Umess-class game and its corresponding gaming zone) in a universal classifier.

The construction of a new Umess variety for any user (developer), by design, is formally reduced to the process of filling out a special «author’s form (Umess-inventor),» during which the desired game parameters must be selected from a multitude of possible options.

This does not mean that creating a successful Umess game is simple. Combining billions and trillions of random or even somewhat deterministic, formally correct sets of game elements (boards, pieces, their functions, etc.) and rules from pre-specified sets (lists of permissible objects) may be handled by a simple computer program. The question is to what extent the games created in this way will be harmonious, capable of reflecting the laws of mind evolution, and able to win the hearts of Umessmen users. To clarify this, Umess includes a subsystem for selecting game-technical solutions, a mechanism for the «struggle of games for existence.»

The authors (and, in a sense, co-owners) of a new intellectual Umess-class game (gaming zone) can be both individual (private individuals) and corporate (e.g., schools, universities, public organizations, commercial firms, etc.) users, as well as entire regions and even ethnic groups.

A new intellectual or intellectual-creative game (gaming zone on the Internet) created by an Umess-inventor through the selection (according to some authorial concept) of game elements and rules (from a pre-specified set of permissible Umess elements) automatically becomes a unit of the highest (creative) level of struggle for existence among Umess-class intellectual and intellectual-creative gaming devices. The goal of this struggle is to achieve maximum recognition (primarily popularity, measured by the number of games played under the rules of the given game) among players (Umessmen) and Umess-inventors.

A gaming zone where anyone can play with other Umessmen according to the rules of a newly created game is automatically formed (by design) upon completion of the registration of the new Umess variety by the author (completion of the «Author’s Form» and confirmation of the game-technical choices made).

The results and records of all games played in any given gaming zone are recorded and accumulated in a special database, allowing anyone to access any information of interest (in particular, to obtain statistics for the entire history of a given game, review games ever played in it, etc.).

Additionally, all authors of new intellectual and intellectual-creative games will be centrally provided with the opportunity to create and maintain specialized websites describing the merits of their developed Umess varieties and offering various information services to beginner and advanced users.

To give a preliminary idea of the combinatorial possibilities of Umess, that is, its generative (creative) potential, it is sufficient to say that the set of basic elementary objects of this meta-game (boards, pieces, service objects, etc.) currently (in version 2.0) numbers over 1,000 units.

Considering the vast variety of generative meta-rules and permissible «branching» (modifiable) game-technical rules of Umess, it is fair to state that the set of completely different intellectual and intellectual-creative games, testing-training systems, and other mental devices that can be created (composed and registered) within the game-technical environment formed by the Umess ideology far exceeds the population of Earth in quantitative terms.

And this is just the beginning. In the foreseeable future (starting with version 3.0), Umess will grow into a super-family of tens and hundreds of trillions of different actual (selected and registered) and potential (available for selection and registration) intellectual and creative games, compositions, tests, and training technologies of various orientations (contributing to the accelerated development of the most exotic combinations of basic human mental abilities).

Why is such semantic and game-technical super-abundance necessary if it is obvious that most of these (principally generatable) games will never be played or even known to exist?

This is the essence of the entire concept. Being inherently super-abundant—in terms of its combinatorial and creative possibilities—as a constructor of new intellectual and intellectual-creative games, as well as dynamic testing-training technologies aimed at developing a wide variety of basic mental abilities, the meta-game Umess simultaneously represents a self-evolving super-model of existence (life, struggle for existence) and the development of intelligence in general, a giant integrated gaming environment (igrotopoecenosis), in which various individual intellectual and intellectual-creative games (actual and potential), as well as their families, distinguished by «genetic similarity,» will play the role of living organisms (and their populations) struggling among themselves for survival, reproduction (expanded reproduction), and development.

From the multitude of possible Umess intellectual and intellectual-creative games, some will never find their authors or fans, others will arise and soon be forgotten, while a third group will forever enter the treasury of human intellectual culture and become super-effective means of developing fundamental human abilities and understanding the laws of mind evolution, prototypes of even more advanced tools for activating human thinking.

What are the main criteria for the selection (and meta-selection) of games proposed by their authors (Umess-inventors)?

There are two. The first and most important criterion is the popularity of a given intellectual game among members of the Umess community (Umessmen).

The high level of integration and formalization of the Internet-based Umess environment will allow detailed tracking of the attendance of various online gaming zones by Umessmen and the number of games played in them, as well as the popularity and prestige of tournaments and competitions of all levels in various Umess-class games. All this will determine the relative popularity of particular intellectual and intellectual-creative games—specific varieties of Umess, units of Umess evolution—among members of the Umess community.

The second criterion is the integral assessment of the potential of a given game in terms of developing various fundamental human mental abilities, provided by all categories of Umessmen (primarily the leaders of the Umess community, top players, and Umess-inventors themselves) through numerous online (on the Internet) and offline (in real life) votes.

Based on these two criteria, the final ratings (indices of evolutionary effectiveness) of various intellectual and intellectual-creative games will be automatically calculated, and decisions will be made about their inclusion in the number of selected («canonical») games entering the «golden fund» of Umess.

«Canonical games,» i.e., games with the highest rating of evolutionary effectiveness (leaders of the «struggle for existence,» game-technical devices with the best «intellectual and creative genotype»), at any given moment will be few—no more than 40–50 units. This will allow players in «Total-Umess,» i.e., Umessmen aiming for the absolute highest titles in Umess, to specialize in a relatively compact variety of «canonical games» without scattering their efforts on studying all possible types of Umess-class game-technical devices.

Naturally, over time, the gaming preferences of Umessmen users and Umess-inventors, spontaneously reflecting real trends in the evolution of human intelligence, will change, and new favorite games will replace old ones. However, it is precisely the analysis of this objective mental dynamics (evolution of mental values and their corresponding thinking mechanisms) that will enable the future design of game-technical (and not only) intellectual and creative devices with completely unimaginable today epistemological, design, and educational capabilities, orders of magnitude more effective than existing analogs (prototypes).

The official results of the creative super-competition for the status of the most popular (among various categories of players and Umess-inventors) and most successful in terms of its properties (game-technical solutions) variety of Umess game (a kind of «Umess constructors’ cup») are planned to be summarized at the end of each calendar year.

Accordingly, based on the results of these super-competitions, all participants (individual or corporate Umess-inventors) will have the opportunity to receive a rank (rating) in the integrated creative Umess hierarchy equivalent to their creative achievements.

By design, as the number and quality of competing Umess-class intellectual and intellectual-creative games and the overall popularity of the meta-game «Umess» among Internet users and students of all educational levels grow, the creative Umess hierarchy will become an increasingly broad and accurate reflection (indicator) of the main trends in the development of collective human thinking, i.e., a unique tool for automatic mental self-reflection of the human community (self-knowledge of collective human intelligence). This is due to the giant formal (logical) and substantive (semantic) variability of Umess, as mentioned above, and the strictly competitive (agonal) nature of the mental activity of Umess-inventors and Umessmen.

The other (gaming, gamer) level of the «struggle for existence (and leadership)» in Umess is, by design, the continuous competition among players (Umessmen) for the status of champion in a particular Umess variety and/or absolute champion in Umess as a whole (champion in «Total-Umess»).

The «struggle for existence (and leadership)» at the gamer level should be carried out both through players (Umessmen) earning various ranks and titles in random rated matches and through their systematic, purposeful participation in online (network, correspondence) and offline (in-person) Umess tournaments of various levels of complexity and prestige. Outstanding gamer achievements, by design, should be recognized with qualification ranks, championship, and other titles in various categories (in accordance with the regulations of Umess competitions and other regulatory documents) and recorded in the «Umess Record Book.»

It seems that this informal (introductory) description of the meta-game «Umess» as a self-evolving mental system representing the general laws of the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence can be concluded here, moving on to a more systematic exposition of its theory and structure.

1.1.2. General Definitions of Umess

Umess can be legitimately viewed, on the one hand, as a meta-game (a special auto-evolving game-technical device, including a generator of intellectual games and testing-training systems, as well as a multitude of competing Umess-class games) and, on the other hand, as a special self-evolving societal subsystem with its own goals and means of achieving them.

Umess as a meta-game (game-technical constructor) will be discussed in detail in the second chapter of this brochure. Here, the primary focus will be on defining Umess as a constituent part of society, as one of its new-generation mental subcultures.

Two main approaches to defining Umess as an institutionalized mental subculture of society are possible: evolutionary and activity-based.

From the perspective of the evolutionary approach, Umess represents: a) an igrotopoecenosis and b) a game-technical sociotopoecenosis.

An igrotopoecenosis is the unity of an igrocenosis (a set of interacting and competing intellectual games and testing-training systems vying for popularity among users) and an igrotop (a common game-technical—»living»—space for all games of a certain type). In the concept of igrotopoecenosis, the units of evolution struggling for existence, expanded reproduction, and development are various intellectual and other games. Their «vital energy,» «food,» is their popularity among the users playing them.

This definition allows characterizing Umess as an umetopoecenosis (Umess-topoecenosis), i.e., a special kind of igrotopoecenosis, representing a self-evolving model of the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence, a unity of an umecenosis (a set of interconnected Umess-class games) and an Umess space (an integrated system of gaming zones in which various intellectual and intellectual-creative games struggle for existence, particularly for popularity among users).

More precisely, an umecenosis (Umess-cenosis) can be defined as a set of intellectual and creative games developed based on the parent game-technical platform (game-technical constructor) «Umess,» representing independent units of Umess evolution, coexisting and interacting (competing with each other) within a holistic gaming Umess space (gaming Umess zone).

Starting with the second version of the meta-game «Umess,» the umecenosis will be divided into a system of relatively independent umecenoses in terms of semantics, though still within the framework of a single parent gaming platform, of lower levels of generality.

The umetop (Umess space) is exhaustively characterized as: 1) a holistic gaming space (gaming zone, system of gaming zones) of the meta-game «Umess,» serving as the basis for the existence of the umecenosis (a set of competing Umess-class games). The umetop, built on the basis of the Umess game-technical platform, imposes a set of conditions on the games implemented within it (elements of the umecenosis), predetermining both the basic properties of the games themselves and the mechanisms of their interaction and competition; 2) in a narrower sense, the Umess game-technical constructor (platform), including all necessary game objects (game boards, pieces, service objects, rules of gaming activity, etc.) for the synthesis and subsequent autonomous competitive existence of games of a certain nature.

Now let us define Umess as a game-technical sociotopoecenosis.

A game-technical sociotopoecenosis is: 1) the unity of a community of people passionate about a particular type of games, interacting and competing within the framework of this activity, and their area of residence; 2) the unity of an organized (more narrowly, institutionalized) social movement (sphere of activity), including a set of various collective and individual subjects of a specific game-technical activity, the mechanism of their communication and interaction, and a sociotop (living space) where this game-technical activity takes place.

Based on the above definition, the game-technical sociotopoecenosis «Umess» is characterized as: 1) the unity of an organized international Umess community and its living space (a specific fragment of the Internet, countries where Umess activity subjects reside, organizations with Umess centers, clubs, sections, etc.); 2) an integrated Umess environment, the unity of an institutionalized international Umess movement (the sphere of Umess activity, a set of interacting and competing Umess activity subjects, and their interaction mechanism) and a game-technical sociotop (the area of distribution of the meta-game «Umess»).

The units of evolution in the sociotopoecenosis of the meta-game «Umess» are people—Umessmen and Umess-inventors—developing their mental abilities and competing with each other for higher statuses and ratings in various Umess hierarchies.

Important concepts characterizing the dynamics of Umess and its establishment as a societal subsystem are: Umess community, Umess movement, Umess evolution, and the evolutionary doctrine of the Umess movement (doctrine of Umess evolution). Let us provide their definitions.

The Umess community is an integrated subject of Umess activity, an international association of individuals pursuing the goals of developing an operational model of the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence and developing their basic meta-pragmatic mental abilities through the cultivation of the meta-game «Umess.»

The Umess movement is: 1) an international public movement created to implement the mega-project «Umess»; 2) the institutionalized activity of the Umess community aimed at the comprehensive development and widespread implementation of the meta-game «Umess» as an adequate model of the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence and an effective means of developing fundamental meta-pragmatic mental abilities through intellectual-creative game-technical and testing-training practices.

Umess evolution is the process of irreversible, controlled progressive development of the meta-game «Umess» and the Umess movement cultivating it (a system of their qualitative and quantitative changes), viewed as a sequential transition from lower stages of the igrotopoecenosis «Umess» (umetopoecenosis) to higher ones, as an increase in the impact of Umess-class games on the evolution of human mentality.

The Evolutionary Doctrine of the Umess Movement (Doctrine of Umess Evolution) is the foundational ideological and organizational document containing the basic theoretical provisions and guidelines underlying the mega-project «Umess,» the main principles, directions, and means of building the international Umess movement, as well as an ordered system of regulatory acts governing all aspects of the Umess community’s activities and targeted programs of various purposes.

Now let us provide the definition of Umess from the perspective of the activity-based approach.

In this sense, Umess can be fairly accurately (adequately) defined, first, as a special holistic institutionalized component of spiritual production, a specialized meta-pragmatic (meta-utilitarian) sphere of human activity (spiritual subculture), whose main purpose is the development of the most fundamental mental strengths (abilities) of the human community, and second, as a comprehensive societal tool, an integrated means and universal method for enhancing the collective mental strength (developing all types of basic mental abilities) of people, including a system of theoretical, organizational, technological, and other elements necessary for preparing and conducting various Umess competitions (umessiads, Umess tournaments, etc.) in various complexes of mental exercises, developmental intellectual games, and creative (Umess-inventive) tasks.

The provided general activity-based definition of Umess requires some comments and clarifications.

When it speaks of the institutionalization of Umess as a holistic component of societal culture (i.e., its independence, separation as a distinct sphere of spiritual culture and mental activity), it is, of course, not about the current state of affairs.

It is (so far) only about a theoretical model, a possible societal mechanism for integrating all social institutions and subcultures engaged in developing fundamental (non-utilitarian) human mental abilities into an ideologically and organizationally unified whole and the prospects this opens for the future.

In other words, the establishment of Umess as a fully recognized independent societal institution (legally designated and practically established sphere of activity) is a matter of the future. At best, it is the possible result of the persistent work and creativity of a sufficiently large, highly professional, and cohesive team of like-minded individuals, supported by relevant government institutions of several countries over several years.

Therefore, in the above definition, it is only about the principled theoretical (conceptual) stance advocated in this work, that Umess is a completely distinct, fully independent in its existence and development subculture (a sphere of human culture subject to designation and institutionalization), satisfying such a fundamental (though still largely latent for mass consciousness) societal need as the multifaceted (and even multidimensional) development of basic (meta-pragmatic) human mental abilities, having its objective functions and requiring the creation of an adequate system of societal regulations (laws, bylaws, doctrines, and programs) and organizational mechanisms designed to realize these functions.

Similarly, with the second activity-based definition of Umess.

It is, of course, premature to speak of Umess today as a holistic universal societal tool (means, method) for mental education (more precisely, Umess education) and the development of basic human mental abilities (Umess abilities).

However, if the subject area and semantic features of Umess as a holistic social phenomenon are not defined sufficiently fully and accurately from the outset, it will never be able to develop to the level of doctrinal self-adequacy it must possess in accordance with its definition and purpose.

Thus, indeed, from the perspective of the proposed theoretical model, Umess is a component of spiritual production (an independent spiritual subculture of society), a specially structured, continuously developing meta-pragmatic agonally organized system (and, simultaneously, process) of activity, oriented toward developing the most general (fundamental) mental abilities (collective mental strength) of people, having its specific goals, means, and subject of influence.

Or, in other words: Umess is a special meta-pragmatic agonally organized system of individual and/or collective (group) activity, oriented toward developing the most fundamental human mental abilities, representing a unity of subjects of mental development of all levels (Umess subjects) and the relationships formed between them in the process of Umess activity.

The provided general definitions of Umess would be incomplete and inaccurate without concretizing them in a system of specific definitions that reveal the principled (theoretical) structure and essence of this holistic sphere of human activity through the mutual subordination of its components.

Umess Subject: An active factor in the Umess process (a person, group of people, Umess organization, etc.), entering the unified Umess system as a full-fledged member of the Umess community and pursuing the goals of developing the Umess movement as a whole, as well as participating and winning in various Umess competitions.

Umess subjects are divided into elementary (an individual person, member of the Umess community: Umessman, Umess-inventor, etc.) and institutionalized (various Umess organizations differing in function and status).

The components and elements of an institutionalized Umess subject include: people (Umessmen and staff of Umess organizations), various structural subdivisions of Umess, goals, and means of Umess.

Goals of Umess:

Hierarchically (by level of significance, timelines, subjects, means, subjects of activity, and other parameters) organized expected socially significant results of implementing the theoretical model and general program of Umess establishment outlined in this brochure, aimed at creating and developing a full-fledged Umess culture in human society, including educational, amateur, and professional subsystems.
Pre-set and expected results by a person (group of people, Umess organization, Umess movement as a whole) of their activity aimed at developing basic mental abilities (mental strengths) and gaining societal recognition of their Umess achievements.

Umess goals are divided into two significantly different groups: one-time goals (tasks) and periodic goals (functions). The difference between them is that one-time goals (tasks) are aimed at satisfying single (albeit significant) needs, while periodic goals (functions) address cyclically reproduced needs. The system of periodic goals (functions) of Umess will be discussed below.

Umess Achievements:

Stages of qualitative establishment of Umess as a special meta-pragmatic sphere of human activity aimed at increasing the level of collective mental strength of society.
Increments in the indices of collective mental strength of the human community obtained through Umess technology.
Properly recorded results in various types and kinds of Umess activity shown by any Umess subject (Umessman or Umess team) during Umess competitions (umessiads, Umess tournaments, Umess test sessions, etc.).
Umess records (properly recorded highest results at Umess competitions of various ranks) of any person (or Umess team) in developing certain individual or collective Umess abilities included in the Umess classification.

Means of Umess: A system of theoretical-programmatic developments and technologies (various game-technical constructors, methods of training and testing fundamental mental abilities, regulations for organizing Umess competitions of all types and levels, various creative methods, etc.), as well as material devices (computers, special trainers, testers, devices, game sets, etc.), designed to realize the goals (functions and tasks) of increasing the collective mental strength of people and developing the Umess movement as a whole.

Umess Relationships: Normed relationships between people and various Umess organizations formed in the process of Umess activity.

Umess relationships are divided into two types: subject-subject and subject-object Umess relationships.

Subject-Subject Umess Relationships: Cooperative and agonal (competitive) relationships between various relatively independent Umess subjects (members of the Umess community, Umess organizations, etc.) in their functions and activities, regulated by decisions of the highest Umess movement governing bodies. Subject-subject relationships are formed between various Umess subjects in the course and regarding the realization of general and specific goals of the Umess movement.

Subject-Object Umess Relationships: Purposefully coordinated and subordinated relationships concerning the maximization of a person’s collective mental strength, increasing their mental freedom, formed between Umess community members in the process of developing basic mental abilities of individuals (Umess training, Umess education, etc.). Subject-object Umess relationships are formed between various Umess subjects and the objects of their influence (various individual or complex basic human mental abilities) in the process of Umess preparation.

In this case, the subject and object of Umess can either coincide in one person or be represented by different people (e.g., a coach and an Umessman, a teacher and a student).

Indeed, the same person engaged in any Umess activity is both a subject and an object of Umess simultaneously, as they purposefully influence their own basic mental abilities.

Conversely, in the case of educational Umess (if it is not about self-education), the role of the Umess subject is performed by the teacher, while the object is the basic (fundamental) mental abilities of the student.

Let us now consider the differences between the concepts of «object of Umess» and «subject of Umess.»

Object of Umess: The human mind as a whole, the integrated ability of a person to understand, think, and create, an inseparable unity of reason and intellect.

As for the subject of Umess, it is something fundamentally different.

In this work, the subject of Umess is proposed to be understood as the most abstract, fundamental component of the human mind, considered separately from specific, applied, utilitarian abilities designed to satisfy any current, pressing human needs.

For example, a person’s ability to successfully engage in business (despite its importance today) is not a subject of Umess, as it is a specific secondary utilitarian (pragmatic, applied) ability built upon other, more abstract and fundamental mental abilities.

That is, the scope of the concept «subject of Umess» includes only such basic mental abilities (sensory sensitivity of various types, memory, attention, speed, accuracy, and flexibility of thinking, intellectual productivity and endurance, imagination, creativity, etc.) that are the foundation (mandatory component) of all or most types and kinds of human activity and are not aimed at satisfying any one or several utilitarian needs.

Abilities of this kind will be called Umess abilities. These are the main conditions for a person’s victorious participation in various Umess competitions.

It is important to emphasize that both Umess abilities (basic, meta-pragmatic mental abilities) and pragmatic (secondary, specific) abilities of the human mind, within the framework of Umess theory, have the same general semantic (and equally biological) structure.

This allows individuals systematically engaged in Umess to relatively easily develop any applied (derivative, secondary) mental abilities necessary for their professional activities subsequently.

1.1.3. General Classification of Umess

One of the most important ways of understanding any object, an integral part of the modeling method, is classification.

Let us first construct a general classification of Umess, derived from its (defined above) general concept as a system of activity.

Within the framework of the proposed concept, the most general division is into genera and species of Umess.

A genus of Umess is an abstract subsystem of Umess, distinguished by one or several primary criteria, which will be discussed below.

A species of Umess will be called a basic subsystem of Umess, identical to the concept of «Umess discipline,» and includes either one intellectual game or one testing-training complex that develops basic mental abilities. For example, classical chess is an independent species of Umess, a holistic gaming Umess discipline.

Umess species can be united on various grounds into groups, families, etc., and combined in various Umess multi-competitions, forming new species. Any Umess species, in accordance with its specifics, may belong (simultaneously) to several Umess genera distinguished by different criteria (but not vice versa).

The species hierarchy of Umess (hierarchy of Umess disciplines) is derived from the genus Umess hierarchy, which needs to be examined in more detail.

Within the framework of the proposed theory, the most important (fundamental, primary) criteria for classifying Umess into genera are the following criterial-semantic linkages:

Extractive – Intellectual – Creative;
Subrational (subconscious) – Rational (conscious) – Superrational (superconscious);
Power (non-gaming) – Gaming;
Training – Agonal (competitive);
Individual – Group (including team);
Educational – Amateur – Professional;
Local – Regional – National – International.

Of great importance is also the division of Umess into theoretical and practical (applied) genus subsystems.

The listed criterial-semantic linkages are incomplete in content, as some of them do not include many significant features undoubtedly related to the Umess sphere (primarily from the realm of esotericism).

In this brochure, the first printed publication on Umess, this is done deliberately to avoid obscuring the general meaning of the proposed concept with numerous aspects, nuances, and details that currently lack scientific confirmation or recognition.

In the future, however, the list and composition of semantic classification criteria for Umess will be significantly expanded and used as the basis for a unified Umess nomenclature, determining the complete genus-species structure of Umess.

Let us now provide definitions of the main Umess genera in accordance with the highlighted criteria (classification grounds).

Based on the first criterial-semantic linkage («extractive – intellectual – creative»), Umess is defined as a unity of extractive (extractive Umess), intellectual (intellectual Umess), and creative (creative Umess) subsystems, aimed, respectively, at developing extractive (sensory and extrasensory perception, axiometry, selection, primary processing and concentration of information, memory of all types, etc.), intellectual (solving complex and super-complex but routine tasks without elements of fundamental novelty within agonally organized game-technical systems with pre-specified semantics and logic), and creative (creative intuition, solving non-standard tasks in meta-pragmatic subject areas with variable semantics and logic, creating new Umess-class games and Umess technologies) human abilities.
From the perspective of the structural criterion «subrational – rational – superrational,» Umess represents a unity of three genus subsystems: subrational Umess (a system of training and agonal activity aimed at optimizing and developing human subconsciousness, basic thinking archetypes, unconscious mental habits, and weakly controlled sensory abilities), rational Umess (a system of training and agonal gaming activity aimed at expanded reproduction and development of a person’s ability to consciously solve tasks of any complexity in finite time), and superrational Umess (a system of training and agonal activity aimed at enhancing and developing a person’s superconscious ability to generate optimal intellectual solutions and strategies).
Based on the criterion «power (non-gaming) – gaming,» Umess is divided into two clearly distinguishable content-technological subsystems: power Umess (a complex of non-gaming Umess disciplines, training, and testing technologies aimed at developing various special mental abilities and recording the highest human achievements in these areas) and gaming Umess (a complex of gaming Umess disciplines aimed at developing various interactive Umess abilities and identifying winners in various individual and group mental confrontations conducted according to precisely defined rules).
Based on the criterion «training – agonal (competitive),» Umess is divided into two components: training Umess (a complex of training disciplines and exercises aimed at developing various types of basic mental abilities of a person) and agonal Umess (a complex of competitive Umess disciplines aimed at recording the best Umess achievements of people and identifying winners in various areas of mental development).
Based on the criterion «individual – group (including team),» Umess is considered a unity of individual Umess (a system of training and agonal activity aimed at developing individual mental abilities of a person) and group (including team) Umess (a system of training and agonal activity aimed at developing the collective mental strength of an Umess team in relation to a wide range of special competitive tasks).
Based on the criterion «educational – amateur – professional,» Umess is divided into three crucial institutionalized subsystems: educational Umess (a special meta-pragmatic component of the education system, a system of Umess education and training of students of all levels in the basics of Umess), amateur Umess (a system of training and agonal Umess based on principles of personal interest in enhancing one’s mental strength, voluntariness, and disinterestedness), and professional Umess (a system of Umess of highest achievements based on the principle of adequate material reward and societal recognition for outstanding Umess results).
Finally, in accordance with the criterion «corporate – local – regional – national – international,» Umess appears as a unity of four interconnected subsystems: corporate Umess (a system of Umess organization in organizations, institutions, enterprises of any ownership form), local Umess (a system of Umess organization in local administrative units—places of compact residence: cities, towns, villages, etc.), regional Umess (a system of Umess organization in large administrative units of a country: capital cities, republics, regions, districts, etc.), national Umess (a system of Umess organization in a particular country), and international Umess (a system of Umess organization on an international scale).

The named primary (archetypal) semantic linkages and their corresponding genus groups (families) of subsystems allow the construction of a multidimensional, non-contradictory genus classification (hierarchy) of Umess, which can be further concretized (deduced) many levels downward, depending on the needs of developing this sphere of activity in the future.

It is also important to say a few words about the species Umess classification (Umess hierarchy). If the genus Umess classification potentially includes many thousands of independent semantic units, the species Umess classification (considering the possible semantic combinatorics of individual Umess disciplines and their elements) may include many millions (in general, an infinite set) of independent species and subspecies of Umess.

Naturally, humanity, no matter how numerous it may be in the future, will not be able to cultivate all possible gaming and testing-training Umess species (Umess disciplines) with equal intensity and effectiveness.

Therefore, one of the most important goals of Umess as a societal subculture is the multi-criteria selection and in-depth development of an optimal number of specific Umess disciplines that most effectively meet the needs of human mental development and the progress of collective human intelligence.

This does not mean that the species Umess hierarchy should become some frozen invariant that does not allow radical reorganizations and development.

On the contrary, the system of the most socially significant Umess species must be continuously updated on a competitive (agonal) basis, and the very fact and continuous process of the struggle of various Umess species for their survival, expanded reproduction, and development will be the guarantee of the effective evolution of Umess as a whole.

In other words, the genus-species classification of Umess, despite its relevance (relative completeness) at any given moment, is conceived as an immanently dynamic doctrinal construct, constantly modified by the Umess community on a competitive (agonal) basis in accordance with the achieved level of understanding and management of the process of developing the basic mental potential (collective mental strength) of humanity.

1.2. Purpose, Principles, and Functions of Umess

1.2.1. Purpose of Umess

Any social phenomenon or invention is viable (exists or is capable of existing) only insofar as it satisfies a particular general or specific human need.

The purpose of this section is to answer the question of what integral human need Umess as a designed new societal subsystem must satisfy and what its (derived from this need) purpose and functions are.

The generic definition of a human is homo sapiens (thinking man). Naturally, in this context, one of the most fundamental needs of humanity must be considered the preservation and accelerated evolution of collective and individual human intelligence, this universal tool of cognition and human struggle for survival, expanded reproduction, and development.

At the same time, while progress in science and technology is evident (with certain reservations) in historical terms, progress in understanding the laws of mental evolution and in increasing the average level of mental development (individual mental strength) of people is not, although humanity throughout its existence has developed numerous specific concepts and methods for enhancing natural mental abilities (various types of mental yoga, mnemonics, various intellectual games, etc.).

This circumstance (the growing lag in understanding the laws of mental evolution and creating societal mechanisms for developing basic human mental abilities compared to applied fields: science, technology, art, etc.) significantly slows historical progress, as the social evolution, limited (channeled) by the current average level of human mental strength, occurs as if in one mental plane, established in antiquity—without breaking through to a new quality (let alone a new dimension).

To ensure a revolutionary breakthrough in understanding the process of mind evolution and developing fundamental human mental abilities, humanity (despite all efforts in this direction) has lacked two very significant factors over the past millennia.

In our view, these are: (a) the absence of an operational, sufficiently well-formalized model of the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence, allowing for accelerated understanding of universal laws of mental evolution, and (b) the unresolved issue of separating the activity of developing basic human mental abilities into a distinct organizationally independent (institutionalized) meta-utilitarian sphere of human activity and culture.

Recall that the development of science, for example, acquired a distinctly progressive character only after this sphere gained full organizational independence and priority status in the civilizations of antiquity (Ancient Greece), modern, and contemporary times.

In other words, if the task is to achieve accelerated (progressive) qualitative development of collective human intelligence and the basic mental abilities of individuals (to recognize a revolution in human mental development as a priority societal need), then the only adequate method for solving it can be the conceptual-organizational and legal (institutional) designation, separation, and advanced development of some non-traditional meta-utilitarian spheres of activity offering sufficiently effective solutions to this problem. Undoubtedly, the sphere of intellectual-creative games and meta-games, the sphere of Umess, belongs to these.

Thus, if we consider Umess from the perspective of its societal purpose, it is an intentionally, axiologically, conceptually, and organizationally independent (separate) system of human activity designed to satisfy the strategic societal need for modeling the process of evolution of collective human intelligence and accelerating (progressive, revolutionary, advanced) development of fundamental mental abilities of each person, that is, in transitioning humanity as a whole to a new quality of intelligence (collective mental strength) through the application of fundamentally new technologies of mental evolution and improving the quality of managing this process.

In other words, the main purpose (integral societal super-function) of Umess is to implement (in the historically foreseeable future) an effectively managed, continuously reproduced, and deepened revolution in the established practice of developing basic human mental abilities and an accelerated transition to qualitatively new standards (basic principles, axiological criteria, testing and training regulations, etc.) and technologies for maximizing human mental strength.

Here it is necessary to address the basic principles of Umess, as without this, an adequate understanding of its purpose and system of functions, as well as the mechanism of their realization, is impossible.

1.2.2. Principles of Umess

The fundamental (forming the basis of the entire concept) ideological, organizational, and axiological regulators of Umess, included in the definition of its purpose and determining its functions and the mechanism of their realization, are the principles of meta-pragmatism (meta-utilitarianism), actuality of perfection (super-value of victory), and qualitative infinity of mental development.

The principle of meta-pragmatism (meta-utilitarianism) means that the sphere of Umess includes only those (traditional or newly designed) types of activities aimed at developing human mental abilities that are not directly related to the use of any applied, practically useful skills and abilities in real life.

For example, poetic creativity of any kind cannot be included in the Umess sphere, as it operates with concepts and images directly related to real life. Similarly, any traditional genre of art, including music, painting, sculpture, etc., not to mention scientific or technical creativity or any other even more utilitarian types of mental activity. In contrast, the game of chess (and all its possible modifications), for example, can fully be included in the Umess sphere, as it is emphatically meta-pragmatic, and its semantics, having no direct relation to the real world, is highly effective in terms of developing a whole range of crucial basic mental abilities.

In other words, the principle of meta-pragmatism (meta-utilitarianism) limits the Umess sphere to only those types of activity whose sole subject is the direct development of basic human mental abilities in their pure form (without any utilitarian informational additives).

Other spheres of mental activity (science, art, technical creativity, etc.), in which human mental development (of an individual or group) is a secondary by-product (result) alongside some primary one: a scientific discovery, a work of art, a technical invention, etc. (conditionally called utilitarian, pragmatic spiritual production), are completely excluded from the jurisdiction of Umess (do not enter the Umess nomenclature, the genus-species classification of Umess disciplines).

It is important to clarify that the principle of meta-pragmatism (meta-utilitarianism) does not, of course, imply the social (in)utility of Umess.

It is only about transitioning to a new, higher quality of societal utility—to strategic, evolutionarily significant utility (meta-utility), the necessary parameters of which cannot be achieved without abstracting from specific scientific, technical, etc. achievements, as well as applied skills and abilities.

The principle of actuality of perfection (super-value of victory) means that a person who has achieved the highest results in any type of Umess (winning the most hierarchically significant competition in a particular gaming or other Umess discipline) must be considered a standard (model) of perfection in that field and receive the maximum possible measure of societal recognition and encouragement to stimulate others to repeat (or surpass) this mental feat, as well as to attract increasingly broader population segments to engaging in Umess.

Naturally, in each specific case, objectively, it can only be about relative (comparative, potential) perfection of a particular person in a specific type of Umess or in Total-Umess, but the measure of societal (intersubjective) recognition of the highest Umess achievement in each competitive cycle must be such as if the Umessman has achieved actual (absolute, unconditional, non-relative) perfection.

Moreover, it is important that new highest Umess achievements do not overshadow the societal significance of old ones. Any holder of the highest Umess record (regardless of when it was set) must be considered a bearer of the highest Umess title in that discipline for life—without any «ex-» prefixes.

This is a guarantee of the super-mobilization of people (Umessmen) to establish ever new Umess records.

The principles of meta-pragmatism (meta-utilitarianism) and actuality of perfection (super-value of victory in competition) were developed and incorporated into their way of life (though not fully universalized and institutionalized) by the ancient Greeks, as will be discussed below.

Here, it is necessary to make a few important remarks regarding the last, but most essential in substance, principle of Umess—the principle of qualitative infinity of mental development.

The principle of qualitative infinity (boundlessness) of mental development means the absence of any a priori limitations on the self-knowledge and self-development of individual and collective intelligence (increasing the qualitative level of collective human mental strength). It is not merely about the possibility of continuous improvement of results in some classical field of mental training or intellectual competitions. The question is posed much broader.

If in our reality (existence) there is nothing necessary for the self-knowledge and self-development of the spiritual potential of a person, then it is necessary to model (design, invent) another reality (with fundamentally new properties and relationships) and, in this conditional (artificial, imagined, consciously constructed) reality, embodied in some special testing-training system or new-generation Umess game, satisfy one’s need for intensifying mental evolution.

This means that the foundation of the philosophy and theory of Umess must initially include the postulate of the multiplicity of worlds.

This refers not only to possible worlds. Actual impossible worlds—artificial game-technical or other realities with basic properties and relationships that contradict the properties and relationships of our world—are entirely permissible (and even necessary for achieving significant Umess progress).

The only question is that mental operations with these worlds and their objects should contribute to the progressive mental evolution of humanity, accelerating the self-knowledge of intelligence.

In other words, within the framework of Umess (considering the principles of meta-utilitarianism and qualitative infinity of mental development), the adequacy of a particular mental model of the reality surrounding us, of existence, i.e., the classical (Aristotelian) idea of the correspondence of truth, ceases to be the highest criterion for evaluating (establishing the societal significance of) knowledge and human abilities.

In its place comes the criterion of the effectiveness of human and humanity’s mental evolution. The essence of this criterion is that the basic tool (means) of cognition and thinking (the human mind) must be broader and more diverse than its subject (the surrounding world, existence), similar to how a numerically controlled machine tool is more universal than any of the parts it produces (possessing a greater number of degrees of freedom).

Only in this case can one expect a transition to a new quality of mental abilities and spiritual activity of people, and, as a consequence, the historical process as a whole.

The adoption of the principle of qualitative infinity of mental development leads to philosophical and evolutionary consequences of immense importance, which are the quintessence of the Umess idea and the real basis of its potential effectiveness as a societal tool for transitioning to a higher level of human mentality.

The above definition of the general purpose of Umess and its basic principles (meta-pragmatism, actuality of perfection, and qualitative infinity of mental development) allows for the construction of an adequate system of societal functions of the first, second, third, and subsequent levels of generality, describing with arbitrary precision the essence of the upcoming transformations in the sphere of developing basic human mental abilities.

1.2.3. Functions of Umess

Let us first clarify the concept of a function of an arbitrary social activity system. In general, the function of any societal subsystem is a specific, precisely formulated (from intentional, axiological, and technological perspectives) and operationalized (measurable through special indicators and procedures) periodically renewed social need satisfied by this subsystem (social object, institution).

It is important to emphasize that this refers specifically to human needs that are permanent or cyclical in nature (i.e., needs that cannot be satisfied once and for all: for example, one cannot eat enough for a lifetime). In this sense, a social function (a constant or periodically actualized need) represents a cyclically reproduced goal.

This distinguishes a function from a task (a one-time, singular need), which can be satisfied without the need for repeated (multiple, cyclical) achievement of that result.

It follows that the system of Umess functions is a strictly detailed, diversified description of its purpose (integral societal function), presented from an activity-based perspective and considering the fact of continuous reproducibility and maximization of the general societal need for developing fundamental mental abilities (the collective mental strength) of people.

The system of Umess functions, given the extremely high level of generality and significance of this type of human activity, has (like the classification of its subsystems) a multidimensional character and must be examined from various perspectives.

In the most general sense, the set of Umess functions is divided into two major classes: external functions and internal functions.

The external functions of Umess, reflecting and determining its relationships with other social spheres (societal activity subsystems) and processes, include the following:

Contributing to historical progress as a whole through accelerated understanding of the process of mental evolution and practical modernization of the qualitative parameters of the primary tool of human activity—individual, collective, and aggregate human intelligence (ensuring the real exponential growth of the collective mental strength of the human community).
Accumulating and implementing in practice (transferring to people through the system of Umess education and training) fundamentally new technologies for developing human intelligence (individual and collective mental strength), creating increasingly advanced systems and mechanisms for reflecting (understanding) reality, rational thinking, and creativity, opening fundamentally new horizons in all spheres of human activity.
Stimulating the development of various independent spheres of societal life: politics, education, science, technology, art, economics, etc.
Ensuring the advanced qualitative development (conceptual, organizational, technological, etc.) of the Umess system relative to other spheres of societal life.

Of course, the named external functions of Umess, despite their extreme generality, do not exhaust the relationships of the Umess system with the «external world,» human society, but they provide a sufficiently comprehensive understanding of the direction and essence of the interaction of the Umess sphere with society as a whole and its main subsystems.

The internal functions of the Umess system represent formalized descriptions of all types of cyclical goal-oriented interactions between various subsystems of this special sphere of societal activity. Naturally, the internal functions of Umess (like the external ones) cannot be described and interpreted (or even named) with sufficient completeness in this introductory brochure.

Nevertheless, the most important of them can and must be defined, as the semantic self-adequacy of the proposed theoretical model of Umess depends on this.

The internal functions of the Umess system are divided into two qualitatively different groups: (1) functions of self-preservation, expanded self-reproduction, and self-development of the main subsystems (institutionalized subjects) and elements of Umess, and (2) functions of developing the basic mental abilities of specific Umess movement participants (Umessmen and local Umess communities).

The first group (1) includes the following internal functions of Umess:

Formation, expanded reproduction, and self-development of the theory, axiology, methodology, and technology of Umess.
Reproduction and self-development of the management system of the Umess movement as a whole and its components, accelerating and deepening the process of institutionalization of new substantive and organizational subsystems and disciplines of Umess.
Reproduction and self-development of the main activity components of Umess: principles, goals, means (including various game-technical constructors, mental and ethical standards, technologies for organizing competitions, testing, and training, equipment, etc.), and subjects (various distinguished and formalized types of basic human mental abilities).
Reproduction and self-development of the main substantive and content-technological subsystems of Umess: a) extractive, intellectual, and creative, b) subrational, rational, and superrational, and c) power-gaming.
Reproduction and self-development of the main technological subsystems of Umess: a) training and agonal (competitive), and b) individual and group (collective).
Reproduction and self-development of the main organizational subsystems of Umess: a) educational, amateur, professional, and b) international, national, regional, corporate, etc.
Reproduction and self-development of all types of intra-system Umess relationships (managerial, substantive, technological, organizational, etc.).

The second group (2) includes internal functions of a completely different nature, directly concerning people—participants of the Umess movement (Umessmen and Umess-inventors of all qualification levels).

The main internal functions of the second kind:

Engaging the maximum possible number of participants in the Umess movement (Umess community) by fully actualizing people’s internal need for intensive systematic mental self-development and continuous comparative verification of their Umess status in various types of Umess competitions.
Ensuring accelerated progress of Umess movement participants of all levels in various Umess disciplines (precisely recorded qualitative development of various human mental abilities) through continuous improvement of educational, training, agonal, and other Umess technologies.
Creating, continuously reproducing, and developing a universal Umess hierarchy (a multidimensional and multi-parametric rating across all types of Umess, a unified Internet database of human mental abilities), in which every person engaged in any type of Umess could occupy a worthy place corresponding to their natural talent, level of Umess training, and will to win in Umess competitions.

1.3. Historical Prototypes of Umess

Any—even the most novel and revolutionary—mental and/or social system of any level of generality always has some (albeit not entirely perfect) analog, prototype (predecessor) in human history, the closest to it in essential parameters and achieved effect compared to other objects of this kind.

The search for such a prototype in various areas of spiritual and societal life, the analysis and evaluation of its merits and shortcomings (functional defects manifesting over time), is a mandatory stage in the process of modeling and designing any large systems and technologies, allowing the establishment of semantic and organizational connections between the new and the old, identifying their significant differences, and obtaining an evolutionary trend that enables predictive and normative forecasting for the future.

As historical prototypes of Umess, classical chess and classical esoteric symbolic systems will be considered below on one hand, and ancient Greek agonistics on the other. Chess and esoteric symbolic systems serve as the mental prototype of the meta-game Umess, while ancient Greek agonistics serves as its socio-organizational prototype.

1.3.1. Chess and Ancient Esoteric Systems

In a certain sense, it can be said that Umess (or rather, pre-Umess), understood as a more or less conscious activity of conceptual and experimental-design development of various means of human mental development (intellectual and creative games, testing systems, etc.), their implementation in practice, and systematic training of the most fundamental human mental abilities, has existed throughout human history.

There is probably no historically significant people (one that left a notable mark in history) on Earth that did not create (or receive from unknown sources) various mental games or initiatory rituals with testing that contributed (among other things) to the development of the mental (including intellectual, extrasensory, and magical) abilities of their tribesmen.

However, the knowledge gained through millennia of experience, painstaking targeted work, and creativity in this area (even if eclectic and shallow) usually remained the domain of the elite and was often lost in various historical upheavals (disappeared along with their bearers, not passed on to new generations) or deliberately concealed (alienated) from the broader population (as literacy was in the recent past). Nevertheless, the development of various basic mental abilities through intellectual games and other formalized mental activities has always been a subject of considerable attention and interest for the best of people throughout history.

Why, then, is Umess presented in this brochure as a fundamentally new concept (theoretical model, doctrine) for developing fundamental human mental abilities through diverse game-technical practices, without precedent in human history, and as a unique agonally organized system of testing and training activities, a special social subculture that has yet to be created (in an institutionalized form) and implemented in spiritual and social life?

The point is that Umess (as understood in this brochure) is not just a concept (theoretical model) that accumulates previous historical experience in developing human mental abilities through game-technical and other mental practices.

A cumulative approach to this problem would not take us beyond pre-Umess, i.e., the archaic (in our view, outdated) human practice of mental development using static intellectual games and autarkic semantic systems of the past.

The question is posed much broader—about transitioning the sphere of game-technical mental activity to a higher epistemological dimension, to a new societal quality.

In this regard, let us consider the closest mental analogs of the meta-game Umess—classical chess, the Arcana of Tarot, Runes, Ba Gua, and similar ancient esoteric systems, which the authors attribute to the sphere of pre-Umess.

The origin of these highly organized and self-consistent (internally harmonious) mental devices is completely inexplicable if based on known facts of humanity’s spiritual evolution over the last millennia. Humanity in antiquity simply did not possess the knowledge (including logical-mathematical, not to mention more) necessary to create mental systems of this class.

It is no coincidence that the origin of all these mental systems, without exception, is linked by many researchers either to higher civilizations (extraterrestrial or those that lived on Earth before us) or to the activities of gods and similar supernatural beings.

Periodically, archaeological evidence supporting such hypotheses is cited in the literature, not all of which is subsequently officially refuted. Among the latest such evidence can undoubtedly be included the recent statements by archaeologist F.F. Preobrazhensky, made in a series of sensational interviews with journalists and published on several Runet websites.

The essence of what F.F. Preobrazhensky stated boils down to the following highly significant claims: during recent excavations conducted in the Temir-Tau region of Central Asia, a cave site of Upper Paleolithic people (30,000 years BC) was discovered, on whose walls a well-preserved image of a 64-square (chess) board with a two-row arrangement of pieces on each side was found. The analogs of the «king» and «queen» in these ancient chess were «Man» and «Woman» (presumably Adam and Eve), the «bishops» were «mammoths» (although in Europe our «bishops» are bishops, i.e., «episcopes»), and the equivalents of modern «rooks» were some strange cones with fire symbols. The cave walls also preserved encoded records of chess games, among which, in particular, our familiar Sicilian Defense was recognized. Fragments of the chess pieces themselves were also found, and the material from which they were made could not be identified due to the absence of some elements in the periodic table.

Commenting on this report is pointless. If even half of what was said is true, it could have the most serious consequences for the self-awareness and prospects for the further development of all human civilization. However, even more fundamental facts from the history of humanity’s mental evolution have become known in the past and ultimately remained without adequate evaluation and proper interpretation.

This interests us only in the sense that a certain complex of extremely profound mental systems, implemented in the form of intellectual games, divinatory systems, semantically multifunctional mystical alphabets, etc., somehow (there is no point speculating about how today) became the heritage of humanity in deep antiquity and, it seems, completely predetermined the course of its spiritual evolution.

The most democratic system of this kind became our ordinary playing cards, which, being essentially a treasury of sacred knowledge, were, according to legend, entrusted by ancient priests to «vice» as a fundamentally indestructible phenomenon (factor) of human life.

A similar role as reckless latent carriers of sacred knowledge was initially played by ancient chess in the form of its variant «Chaturanga,» an indispensable attribute of which in antiquity was dice. Later, chess lost its random character and, starting with the noble «Shatranj,» became a strictly deterministic, purely intellectual game.

The hidden supreme mystical symbolism and intellectual depth of any known version of chess (as well as other named esoteric systems) could be discussed endlessly.

The question is different. To what extent have these systems been understood by us, and to what extent do they still retain their function as latent regulators of humanity’s mental evolution?

Despite the existence of extensive occult literature numbering tens of thousands of titles, it must be acknowledged that the degree of understanding by all of us (including the costumed clowns calling themselves «initiates») of classical esoteric symbolic systems is realistically very close to zero. Moreover, humanity, it seems, is generally inclined to abandon the comprehension of the esoteric component of chess, cards, runes, and similar ancient mental artifacts and to consider them solely as means of entertainment or, at best, non-demanding intellectual training.

This is largely explained, in our view, by the fact that classical symbolic systems are rather static in their structure and do not provide the modern person (even one naturally inclined to esoteric pursuits of various kinds) with the sense of rapid dynamism of mental processes to which they are so accustomed in everyday life.

Moreover, a «strong (mental) door» can be opened either with a special «key» designed for it or with a much more powerful mental tool than a simple intellectual «lockpick,» which each of us possesses to some degree.

Since the ancient owners of mental «treasures» apparently did not think to entrust not only the «treasures» themselves but also the «keys» to them to «vice,» or, at the very least, to test «virtue» as a keyholder, only the second option remains (to break the door and enter by force).

Where can such a mental tool be found? In our view, which today, it seems, has moved beyond the realm of hypothesis, such a tool could be the same complex of symbolic esoteric systems discussed above, but considered not as a set of incommensurable «mental pearls» but as a holistic meta-system with a unified semantic and logical-mathematical basis, allowing productive combination of semantic and logical-mathematical series belonging to different mental devices and then rationally interpreting the newly synthesized artifacts.

After numerous more or less successful experiments in synthesizing various esoteric units and their subsystems into holistic mental systems of a new generation, the earliest of which was the intellectual game «Superchess» presented in Appendix 4, the authors of this brochure managed to identify some unexpectedly interesting patterns that later became the basis of the Umess meta-game concept.

One of the secrets of success found by the authors in the process of the described activity is the artificial sharp dynamization of the studied ancient mental systems and the creation of semantic series that far exceed the basic (original) ones in their composition and combinatorial possibilities. For example, if there is no piece in chess combining the functions of a «knight» and a «bishop,» it should be added, and an attempt should be made to analyze the reasons why it was not introduced (by the unknown authors of this great game) into the set of chess game objects earlier.

Some results of the authors’ research and developments regarding possible additions to the set of pieces, game boards, and standard chess rules are presented in the second chapter of this brochure.

Those readers who are able to understand this will appreciate the beauty and depth of the epistemological and creative possibilities opened within such a semantic constructor, not to mention the pleasure of playing ever newer and increasingly interesting and engaging intellectual and intellectual-creative games every day.

The results concerning the synthetic game-technical interpretation of other ancient esoteric systems (the second version of the Umess meta-game) will be published somewhat later.

Conducting such work with all known esoteric symbolic platforms made it clear that a grandiose mental super-paradigm is gradually taking shape, which in itself is a unique dynamic model of the evolution of collective human (and only human?) intelligence, allowing consciousness not only to penetrate to an arbitrarily great depth into each individual esoteric system mentioned above but also to go further, mastering completely new fundamental mental paths and families of such paths.

When the idea of the younger author of this brochure was added to complement the research conducted by our family team with a mechanism for the auto-evolution of intellectual and intellectual-creative games in the form of an infinitely rich game-technical constructor in terms of semantics and an agonally organized system for selecting gaming units of a new generation synthesized by many people (read: spontaneous, sufficiently random, but personally justified interpretations of the universal esoteric code, precisely reflecting the mentality of each specific author), it became clear that the model of mental evolution we are developing acquires multiple mutually determined dimensions capable of leading to some completely fantastic knowledge, which perhaps even the creators of the great symbolic systems of antiquity did not fully possess.

From this moment, all previously autonomous and self-sufficient esoteric platforms of antiquity (game-technical, divinatory, generative, etc.) received the common name pre-Umess (or, more broadly, pre-uming).

So, what distinguishes Umess from its prototype—pre-Umess (the pantheon of unexplored ancient esoteric systems), the Umess meta-game from classical chess?

The answer is singular—richness of semantic choice, degree of integration and formalization, level of mental dynamism. But the main thing is the unlimited freedom of creativity, the ability to create one’s own mental worlds and compare them with the worlds of others.

1.3.2. Ancient Greek Agonistics

In designing Umess as a social system (a new-generation societal subculture, an evolutionary social movement, a game-technical sociotopoecenosis), ideas and design solutions from many different fields of activity were used, but the most significant historical analog (prototype, predecessor), undoubtedly, is ancient Greek agonistics.

In what sense is ancient Greek agonistics, the competitive culture of Hellas, an ideological, ethical, and technological prototype of Umess as a social movement and system of mental activity? In what exactly are they similar and different?

First, about the elements of similarity. Let us begin by noting the fact that ancient Greek culture is a completely unique phenomenon in world history.

Its uniqueness, according to many leading researchers of antiquity, lies in the fact that the ancient Greeks (unlike all other peoples) placed the Agon—the competitive principle brought to its logical limit and technological perfection—at the foundation of their civilization, considering a person’s victory in any socially significant competition as the highest meaning of their life, a means of achieving an infinite ideal (actual perfection) through finite means.

It is enough to say that the ancient Greeks were the only people who deified competition (contest) as such (in all spheres of activity) and regarded the Agon as an independent deity included in the pantheon of gods and depicted in epic poetry, sculpture, and ceramics.

Thus, the first key similarity between Umess and ancient Greek agonistics is the recognition of the super-value and universality of formalized competition, organized rivalry (Agon) as a social institution, allowing the most effective organization of any sphere of activity requiring a high intensity of mobilization of human vital forces (including mental ones) to achieve highly significant societal goals.

It is important to note that agonistics was not only recognized by the ancient Greeks as a fundamental life value and universal organizational tool, permeating all aspects of their social existence without exception: physical culture (athletics), art, science, politics, the judicial system, etc., but also had one extremely significant feature that allows it to be quite distinctly distinguished from the competitive traditions of other peoples.

This feature is the principled meta-utilitarianism (or meta-pragmatism, if you will) of ancient Greek agonistics.

The meta-utilitarianism of ancient Greek agonistics can be most vividly illustrated by the example of the famous Hellenic athletics as the substantive foundation of the Olympic Games.

Hellenic athletics, based on the ideal of kalokagathia (Greek: kalos kai agathos—beautiful and good), the harmony of physical and spiritual perfection, and closely tied to the centuries-long practice of the Olympic Games, always had a unique axiological and legal (institutional) status in ancient Greek culture, incomparable in significance to similar physical education and competition technologies of other peoples.

At the core of this phenomenon was the crucial fact that classical athletics was created and used by the ancient Greeks not as a method for achieving any utilitarian (life-useful, applied) goals (e.g., developing a man’s abilities as a hunter or warrior) but rather as an optimal means of ensuring strict comparability of the levels of physical perfection of different people (their proximity to the ideal of kalokagathia) through clearly ordered in-person competitions in various specially selected (in accordance with a priori abstract philosophical, aesthetic, and ethical principles) competitive disciplines.

In other words, the ancient Greeks engaged in athletics (and participated in various competitions) to comprehend (understand, identify, determine) the diverse facets of the ideal of human physical perfection as such, without simultaneously aiming to become more skilled or effective in any practical activity (e.g., military affairs).

The ancient Greeks, perfectly understanding that classical athletics represented a kind of “art for art’s sake,” practically unsuitable (or barely suitable) for utilitarian use, nonetheless strictly preserved the meta-utilitarian traditions of the Olympic Games (including the ban on participating in athletic competitions in clothing, let alone armor), seeing in them a much higher societal value than the mere satisfaction of pressing social needs.

This confirms the thesis that agonal athletics was for the ancient Greeks something significantly more (much greater) than just a means of physical training for some applied purposes (including preparing citizens for war).

In other words, when we speak of the features of classical Hellenic agonal athletics, we are talking about the all-consuming aspiration of the ancient Greeks for physical perfection as such (considered as a self-sufficient non-utilitarian ideal, one of the conditions for achieving kalokagathia).

Another important feature of ancient Greek agonistics, complementing and reinforcing the first, is the kind of pan-Hellenic cult of victory (highest achievement) in competitions of the best as a super-criterion of societal significance (recognition), dignity, and personal valor of a person (their proximity to the human ideal).

It is no coincidence that Olympic winners—Olympionics—became true idols of their city-states. Their likenesses were immortalized in marble and bronze statues, parts of city walls were demolished in their honor so that the Olympionic could enter the city not through the gates like ordinary “mere mortals” but in a manner befitting only a demigod. Olympionics had easy access to the highest political offices. There are numerous known cases when Olympionics became legislators, military commanders, and even heads of state.

Such a high degree of reverence by the ancient Greeks for Olympic winners is inexplicable without considering the prevailing all-encompassing cult of physical perfection and the Agon (in-person competition of the best as a means of societal confirmation, the highest verification of the achieved level of kalokagathia).

In fact, immediately after winning the Olympic Games, an Olympionic was recognized by Greek society during their lifetime as a bearer of the highest physical perfection, a living ideal, an embodiment (of at least one of the two components) of kalokagathia.

Thus, Greek agonistics (judging by the example of Olympic athletics) has at least two significant features that sharply distinguish it from the competitive traditions of other peoples: a) orientation toward achieving the highest abstract (meta-utilitarian) ideal, b) the super-significance of victory in a competition of the best as a basis for recognizing a person’s societal and personal dignity, practically complete identification of the highest relative achievement (victory in a specific competition) with absolute ideal, perfection (kalokagathia).

Of course, these features could exist only based on the recognition of the highest value of the Agon (competition) itself as a finite means (tool) for achieving an infinite ideal of any nature.

It is no coincidence that the ancient Greeks were and remain the only people who halted inter-city wars during the period of the largest athletic competitions (Olympic Games), considering the former less existentially significant (from the perspective of societal existence and its highest values) than the latter.

The mentioned features of ancient Greek agonistics extended to other types and kinds of their activities.

It is known, in particular, that alongside athletic agonistics (and based on the same fundamental ideological, ethical, and organizational principles), musical agonistics was also quite actively developed in Ancient Greece, encompassing various competitions of poets (aoidoi), rhapsodes, citharists, dancers, soothsayers, etc.

Various types of intellectual agons (public competitions of orators, debates of politicians, philosophers, mathematicians, etc.) were also widely used.

It was precisely the principles and technologies of Hellenic agonistics, extended by the ancient Greeks to the sphere of cognition, that ultimately led to the emergence (creation, establishment) of such a super-foundation of modern world civilization as science, whose highest regulatory norms were and are: a) the priority of abstract (ideal, theoretical) knowledge over utilitarian, applied, recipe-based knowledge, and b) the requirement of precise recording of the authorship of a specific person (group of people) for an idea or work, intersubjective (general for the scientific community as a whole or its sufficiently representative part) recognition and evaluation of a scientist’s intellectual achievement (scientific discovery, development of a new theory, etc.).

In other words, it was the Greeks’ detachment from utilitarian benefit in any competition (love for competition as a means of comprehending an ideal of any nature) and their inclination toward formalization and idealization of reality, as well as the development of precise criteria for victory in any kind of confrontation (in particular, in debate, discussion, intellectual agon), combined with a historically stable tradition of universal recognition and honoring of winners as bearers and expressers of an infinite ideal, that, in our view, directly influenced the formation of that phenomenal, unprecedented societal evolutionary mechanism we today call ancient Greek agonistics and which the authors chose as the primary (most fundamental) ideological and organizational-technological social prototype of Umess.

A similar view on ancient Greek agonistics is held by the well-known researcher of Hellenic culture A.I. Zaitsev: “… ancient Greek society, at least from the Homeric to the classical era, belonged to the category of societies in which an individual’s orientation toward surpassing others in achieving their life goals, so-called competitive societies, was of great importance” (104, p. 81).

And further: “It is significant … that no known society was oriented toward the Agon in general to such an extent as ancient Greek society, and, in particular, did not attach such importance to athletic competitions” (104, p. 88).

In this regard, a natural question arises: why did the ancient Greeks themselves not extend the principles of their agonistics to the sphere of qualitative evolution of intelligence, the development of basic human mental abilities (the collective mental strength of the human community), why did they not create Umess as a distinct independent agonally organized societal subsystem (sphere of activity) aimed at the accelerated evolution of human mentality?

In our view, there are two reasons for this.

First, the ancient Greeks simply did not separate the process of developing basic human mental abilities, the collective mental strength of a person, from engagement in philosophy, logic, mathematics, rhetoric, sophistry, etc. (they did not have a corresponding theoretical and axiological doctrine).

It was believed that systematic engagement in these disciplines was in itself the most effective development of mental abilities of all kinds to the extent that each person was naturally endowed with them.

In fact, the ancient Greeks treated the training and agonal comparison of various people’s mental abilities through well-formalized intellectual and intellectual-creative games in the same way that the ancient Romans treated physical perfection, i.e., quite utilitarianly (from the perspective of achieving a finite effect: creating a theory, proving a theorem, winning a debate, etc.).

A meta-pragmatic ideal of qualitative intelligence development, dynamic mental perfection, despite the existence of the principle of kalokagathia, which proclaimed, at the very least, the equality and equivalence of physical and spiritual perfection, was not created by the ancient Greeks.

They likely understood spiritual perfection either too vaguely to create adequate game-technical and social forms for its comparative evaluation or interpreted it too utilitarianly, i.e., reduced it to specific ethical (e.g., martial valor) and intellectual (theories, theorems, poems, musical works, etc.) achievements.

Therefore, although the Greeks accumulated various empirical knowledge and skills in the sphere of developing human intelligence in general and the mental abilities of individuals, creating special applied teachings and training complexes in this area (e.g., the famous ancient Greek mnemonics), they did not have a general theory of intellectual-creative meta-games or corresponding independent social institutions (special societal institutions, educational establishments, or prestigious game-technical and testing competitions in the sphere of intellect and creativity).

The societal need to designate the sphere of intellectual-creative auto-evolving meta-games like Umess as an independent social institution, a priority subsystem of the cultural sphere, driven by the sharp increase in societal practice requirements for the overall quality of human intelligence development and the average level of mental abilities of the population (in particular, the average intelligence quotient of the working population), is not fully recognized even today, at the beginning of the 21st century (despite the obvious avalanche-like growth of increasingly complex information to process, which only a highly developed mind can effectively counter).

What can be said about antiquity?

Second, various esoteric practices aimed at developing certain special (in particular, extrasensory and magical) human mental abilities have always been, and largely remain, the prerogative of various secret priestly communities (religious clans, sects, orders, etc.), which are by no means inclined to make their knowledge available to the uninitiated («profanes» in their terminology), i.e., the broader population.

This means that, alongside the factor of insufficient general awareness of the evolutionary significance of special auto-evolving agonally organized game-technical devices, training, and comparative tests of mental abilities, the creation and development of meta-games like Umess as an independent social institution were also hindered in the early stages of human history by the deliberate concealment by the spiritual (primarily priestly) elite of accumulated knowledge in this area from the social lower classes.

In any case, in real human history, the combination of ancient Greek agonistics with activities in epistemological and social modeling of the process of qualitative intelligence evolution, as well as the development of basic human mental abilities and the formation of an independent societal subsystem—a sphere of evolutionary game-technical culture—was, as is known, not realized.

If this had happened in antiquity, people today, in terms of their mental potential, could largely be considered demigods.

Unfortunately, this is far from the case.

But creating an effective institutionalized system of auto-evolving intellectual-creative meta-games like Umess today, when the need to transition human intelligence to a new qualitative level and accelerate the development of basic mental abilities is becoming increasingly urgent, and thereby laying a solid foundation for the accelerated ascent of humanity to the ideal of mental perfection, is hindered by nothing except the limitations of our own mentality.

Concluding the analysis of the question of the similarity between the basic provisions of the Umess meta-game concept and the theory and practice of ancient Greek agonistics applied in various spheres, we note that in two crucial points, these doctrines are quite close in essence, though, of course, they differ in their subject area and project implementation.

These are the principles of meta-pragmatism (meta-utilitarianism) and actuality of perfection (super-value of victory) discussed above.

It was these two principles, as shown, that formed the ideological, ethical, and organizational-technological foundation of ancient Greek agonistics. They also constitute the proto- (or arche-) typical part of the Umess concept.

However, this is where the similarity between ancient Greek agonistics and the meta-gaming social system (game-technical sociotopoecenosis) Umess ends. Ancient Greek agonistics—despite all its merits and advantages—has, in our view, one very significant structural flaw.

Throughout its existence, it was oriented toward serving exclusively qualitatively static (unchanging, invariant) societal ideals and using equally ultra-stable means of achieving them (in particular, the basic disciplines—types—of ancient Greek athletics remained unchanged for centuries).

In the case of the Umess meta-game, this is completely unacceptable. In the sphere of developing collective human intelligence and the basic mental abilities of an individual (unlike the traditional spheres of application of ancient Greek agonistics), we are dealing from the outset with a dynamic (evolving, innovated), not static (invariant), societal ideal.

If, for example, the achievable level of physical perfection is quite rigidly determined by human anatomy and physiology, the possible level of mental perfection (mental strength) of people, considering the existing potential for unlimited development of their extractive, intellectual, and creative abilities (especially with the prefix «extra»), has much more flexible (weaker) constraints.

In other words, a person today does not know the objective limits of their potential mental strength, even with the existing parameters of the human brain (they have an almost infinite number of as yet unused degrees of mental freedom, psychic forces that have yet to be mastered in the future).

If we also consider the absence of objective natural prohibitions on the further qualitative evolution of the human brain and the near-term prospect of implanting artificial intelligence and creative ability enhancers into the human brain, it is possible that there are simply no limits to the growth of human mental strength.

It follows that the immanent system-forming regulator of Umess (ideological, ethical, and organizational-technological)—unlike traditional ancient Greek agonistics, which relies on static societal ideals—must be the principle of qualitative infinity (boundlessness) of mental development, based on the idea of a dynamic (modifiable, evolving toward increasing the projected limits of mental development) societal ideal.

Applying the idea of a dynamic (improvable and developing) ideal underlying the principle of qualitative infinity of mental development to ancient Greek agonistics means transitioning it to a completely new quality, allowing the non-contradictory combination within a single social mechanism of the requirement for perfection with the requirement for continuous progress (development).

In other words, combining the idea of a dynamic ideal (in any subject area) with the basic ideas of classical ancient Greek agonistics means creating a social agonistics (in a broad sense—a system of ordered competition among various social subjects) of a fundamentally new type—harmonic agonistics, opening qualitatively higher horizons for the accelerated progressive development of any social systems.

Speaking directly about Umess, a societal subsystem (subculture) in which the concept of harmonic agonistics will be implemented (tested) for the first time in social practice, without this innovative (evolutionary) mechanism, the program of accelerated qualitative development of fundamental human mental strengths embedded in the proposed Umess doctrine is simply unfeasible.

In practice, the idea of harmonic agonistics means that within the social system using this concept (in particular, within the Umess movement), there are no absolutely static (invariant) ideals, properties, canons, relationships, components, etc.

Concluding the consideration of the question of the main (basic) historical prototype of Umess—ancient Greek agonistics, its merits and shortcomings—it is necessary to briefly address the general characterization of the system (hierarchy) of specific social prototypes used to develop specific subsystems and mechanisms of the second and lower levels of generality, which together and in interaction constitute the unified Umess culture system.

It should be noted that ancient Greek agonistics is not the only historical prototype of Umess as a social movement.

Social systems of such complexity as Umess culture, encompassing hundreds and thousands of organizational-technological mechanisms of various levels of generality, simply cannot function fully without incorporating the full richness of socio-design solutions developed by humanity in various spheres of societal activity. However, among the used prototypes, there is always a fairly strict subordination establishing value-based, ideological, and functional priorities.

This is true in the case of Umess as well. Alongside ancient Greek agonistics (the main social prototype of the designed Umess culture), social prototypes of the second, third, and subsequent levels of significance can include the most diverse spheres of societal life (their subsystems), employing various mechanisms of intersubjective competition and stimulation of high-productivity mental activity, as well as having workable specific solutions.

As the most illustrative example of a social prototype of the second level of significance, let us consider the modern sports system.

Originating in deep antiquity and undergoing numerous qualitative transformations throughout its history, sports today have become a rapidly developing independent component of global culture and economy, engaging the activities of billions of people on the planet and operating with enormous material and informational resources.

Within the modern global sports system, effective technologies have been developed for organizing and interacting with state, public, and commercial physical culture and sports societies, creating and ensuring the successful functioning of national sports education systems, conducting various types and levels of sports competitions, designing, implementing, and disseminating new sports disciplines, etc.

A global sports industry (sports business system) has been created, including hundreds of thousands of construction and industrial enterprises creating and modernizing countless specialized sports facilities and producing a vast array of sports goods, a branched system of sports services offering tens of thousands of various services (from tickets to sports events to accepting bets on sports betting pools), and an unprecedented advertising industry for sports news with a massive audience and turnover.

While not a model for emulation in a conceptual sense (in terms of the quality of doctrinal equipment, modern sports, in our view, are inferior even to ancient Greek athletics, which was much more deeply oriented toward the ideal of kalokagathia), the sports world today represents an inexhaustible treasury of successful specific organizational and technological solutions that (after necessary modification) can serve as excellent local prototypes for various subsystems of Umess at different levels of generality (at least in its formation phase).

All this together makes the modern sports world one of the prototypes of the second level of significance for Umess, i.e., a source of ideas and experience that (by using previously developed highly effective specific doctrinal, organizational, and technological solutions) can significantly reduce the formation period of Umess culture as an independent societal subsystem designed to maximize the collective mental strength of the human community.

Similarly, any other spheres of societal life (their subsystems, elements, etc.) can be considered prototypes of mechanisms for functioning at the second and lower levels of significance for Umess. This is a matter of expediency and alignment with the ideals, goals, and ethical norms of the Umess movement.

In any case, the question of Umess prototypes, borrowing ideas and technologies from other, temporarily organizationally more developed social spheres, is relevant only in the first phase of its formation, when the volume of innovative activity and financial resources directed by society toward developing Umess culture as a whole, its subsystems, and basic mechanisms is very close to zero.

As Umess culture (as an independent societal subsystem) acquires the necessary and sufficient social, organizational-financial, and innovative strength, Umess will increasingly become a collective super-generator and donor of socially significant ideas and mechanisms, as well as a «locomotive» of mental and, more broadly, social progress.

2. General Structure of the First Version of the Meta-Game «Umess»

The version of the Umess meta-game developed by the authors to date (2.0) is too complex (cumbersome, oversaturated with various game objects, meta-rules, and specialized terminology) for adequate comprehension by unprepared readers (especially school students) and for its initial (starting) implementation as an online game-technical environment on the Internet. Therefore, a simplified version of Umess, designated as version 1.0, is presented below.

The Umess meta-game, considered as a multidimensional game-technical constructor (parent game-technical platform) and, simultaneously, a potentially infinite set of competing independent classical and new intellectual and intellectual-creative games, testing-training systems, compositions, and other mental devices, represents a unity of game objects of two types: a) game primitives (elements, monads, fragments, components, ingredients): game boards (formalized game spaces), pieces (formalized images, characters) with their inherent (inalienable, attributive) and additional (variable, optional, modal) functions, service objects (marked fields, dice, special chips, cards, etc.), and b) game rules.

2.1. Game Boards in «Umess» (Version 1.0)

From a functional perspective, any game board in Umess is a formalized arena for intellectual struggle between players (Umessmen), conducted in accordance with pre-specified, strictly defined rules.

From a structural perspective, game boards (spaces, topoi, maps, etc.) of the Umess meta-game are bounded planar surfaces of regular geometric shapes (square, rectangle, triangle, circle, ellipse, etc.), divided into variously colored game fields (squares) and equipped with coordinate grids (coordinate systems) ensuring unambiguous determination of piece positions and move notation.

In the first version of the Umess meta-game, only orthogonal boards (squares and rectangles) are used. The permissible board dimensions are nm*, where n and m are natural numbers in the range of 5 to 20.

Boards with fewer than five fields horizontally or vertically are meaningless in game-technical and intellectual-creative terms (games implemented on them are either too simple and thus uninteresting or provide an unjustifiably large advantage to the player with the first move). Boards with more than 20 fields horizontally or vertically are too complex and inconvenient in terms of software implementation and production as game sets. Moreover, many games implemented on such boards are excessively exhausting for the players (victory is achieved only after an inordinately large number of moves). Finally, semantic and logical-mathematical systems of such dimensions simply do not correspond to the real (or even potential) sensory and computational-analytical parameters of human thinking.

With this in mind, Umess-inventors can choose game spaces for their authored games from Umess boards with dimensions ranging from 5×5 to 20×20, including, for example, variants such as 5×6, 6×5, …, 11×11, …, 17×8, etc.

Thus, in the first version of the Umess meta-game, Umess-inventors are provided with 256 different orthogonal game boards, which offer sufficient (initially) scope for creative imagination (see Table 1 and Appendix 1: Game Boards of the First Version of the Umess Meta-Game).

Table. Game Boards in Umess (Version 1.0)

	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
5	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
6	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32
7	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48
8	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64
9	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
10	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96
11	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112
12	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128
13	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140	141	142	143	144
14	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
15	161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176
16	177	178	179	180	181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192
17	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200	201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208
18	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220	221	222	223	224
19	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
20	241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256

In all game boards of the first version of the Umess meta-game, rows of fields (squares) running from one player to another are called «files,» and rows of fields perpendicular to the «files» are called «ranks.»

In Table 1, the first column on the left vertically and the first row at the top horizontally contain numbers indicating, respectively, the number of «files» and «ranks» in game boards of various dimensions and configurations in the first version of Umess.

The numbers located in the cells at the intersection of files and ranks in Table 1 denote the serial numbers of all 256 orthogonal boards of the first version of Umess.

For example, a game board divided into 7 files and 8 ranks has the number 36, and the standard chessboard (8×8) has the number 52.

Numbered and strictly ordered relative to each other in various respects, the game boards of the Umess class constitute the holistic game space of the first version of Umess, providing unique opportunities for logical-mathematical analysis of the structure and dynamics of human mentality through studies of the comparative popularity of various intellectual games.

Service Object (Sign) «Forbidden Field»: Already in the first version of Umess, a unique service object in terms of its generative possibilities is provided—the «forbidden field» (see Fig. 1), which allows (when designing a new game) blocking any square on an arbitrarily chosen primary game board (making the selected square inaccessible for placing game pieces of either opponent).

Depending on whether the «forbidden field» service object was used in selecting the game board, the game boards of the first version of the Umess meta-game are divided into two types: primary (orthogonal) and derivative, configured (having one or more blocked fields).

Figure 1. Service Object (Sign) «Forbidden Field»

The number of blockages of individual squares (fields) on one primary game board is not regulated. This means that, by choosing a primary game board of sufficiently large dimensions, an Umess-inventor can—through multiple blockages of unnecessary fields (squares)—give it the most whimsical geometric shape (e.g., design a cross, rhombus, a system of two or more intersecting squares or rectangles, place impassable «redoubts» in the center or at the edges of the board, etc.) (see Appendix 1).

The number of more or less rational (in terms of the intellectual merits and potential popularity of the designed games) variants of blockages of individual fields and their groups (with a base of 256 primary variously sized orthogonal boards) or, in other words, configurations of game boards in Umess, is estimated, approximately, by an eight-digit number. Such is the diversity of possible game-technically effective game boards already in the first version of Umess.

Coloring of Game Boards: In the first version of the Umess meta-game, only two-colored boards are used, with squares alternately colored in light («white squares») and dark («black squares») tones.

Partners (Sides) in Umess-Class Games and Their Positioning Relative to Game Boards: One of the most important limitations of the first version of Umess is that only games with two partners (opponents, rivals, adversaries, sides, Umess combatants) are allowed within its framework. (In higher versions of Umess, games with antagonistic and/or partially antagonistic interests with 2 to 8 possible opponents are provided.) This means that one of the opponents in any game belonging to the first version of Umess must play with «white» pieces, and the other with «black.»

Blocked fields do not lose their original «color,» although they are marked with the «forbidden field» sign. In this sense, one can speak of «nominally white» and «nominally black» forbidden fields on the game board.

A game board of any dimension must be positioned such that the player with «white pieces» always has a white corner square (field) on their right. If the right corner square is blocked (is a «forbidden field»), it is necessary to ensure that it is nominally «white,» i.e., mentally «logically calculate» its color based on the colors of the nearest unblocked squares. An additional criterion for the correct positioning of a board of arbitrary dimension is that the rank closest to the player with «white pieces» is the rank numbered 1.

In software (particularly network) implementations of the Umess meta-game, the correct positioning of the game board of any configuration relative to the players playing with differently colored pieces (and vice versa) is guaranteed automatically.

2.2. Pieces in the First Version of the Meta-Game «Umess» and Their Functions

The Umess meta-game, in general (speaking of its advanced versions), includes an enormous number of various highly semantically rich pieces capable of performing the most incredible game functions.

It is enough to say that the game pieces and service objects of Umess (version 2.0) currently include the «Arcana of Tarot,» zodiac signs, runes, Chinese Ba Gua, other divinatory and cryptographic systems, ordinary playing cards, the most common ancient and modern alphabets and quasi-alphabets, including the «Morse code,» numerical systems of all kinds, basic geometric constructions, various ornamental compositions, musical signs, various religious, heraldic, and other symbols, national flags, coats of arms, and other attributes of statehood of various countries, etc., not to mention ordinary chess pieces, checkers, domino tiles, etc.

These game objects can be grouped and functionally combined in various ways according to special rules and meta-rules, forming extraordinarily beautiful and profound intellectual-creative games, semantic compositions, testing-training systems, and even highly semantically rich tools for «conceptual painting.»

This makes the Umess meta-game an intellectual-creative system of colossal semantic power and unprecedented logical-mathematical diversity, capable of comprehensively reflecting any types of human activity and evolutionary processes of arbitrary complexity, as well as creating new mental worlds that are difficult to imagine today.

In many ways, starting from the second version, the Umess meta-game will resemble Hermann Hesse’s «Glass Bead Game» for beginners. More experienced members of the Umess movement, of course, will find such a comparison inappropriate and inadequate (if only because the rules of the «Glass Bead Game» remained unformulated). However, in terms of basic intentions, these two game-technical systems are undoubtedly somewhat similar.

Unfortunately, the volume of programming work for the second and higher versions of Umess is feasible only for extremely powerful IT corporations and will be feasible for the Umess movement only at sufficiently advanced stages of its establishment.

Therefore, it was decided by the authors to include only chess-type functional pieces in the first version of Umess.

However, considering that even the first version of Umess must provide a sufficiently broad field for creative self-expression of Umess-inventors, the standard set of chess pieces was expanded quantitatively and significantly supplemented functionally.

At the same time, some semantic omissions of the developers of classical chess were corrected, which made this great game functionally significantly poorer compared to its inherent semantic and logical-mathematical potential.

In particular, many very simple and logical game functions of pieces in classical chess are simply not implemented. For example, the standard «queen» combines the functions of the «bishop» and «rook,» making it not only the most powerful but also the most intellectually (functionally) rich piece in chess. Unfortunately, pieces combining the functions of «bishop» and «knight,» «knight» and «rook,» «knight» and «pawn,» etc., are not provided for in classical chess (not to mention super-heavy pieces combining, for example, the functions of «bishop,» «knight,» and «rook»).

Of course, chess is (still) sufficiently interesting to the general public without any innovations, but why not try, for example, playing a chess variant in which (instead of a «rook») there existed a piece combining the functions of a «bishop» and a «knight»? This single simple innovation fundamentally changes classical chess and can provide a creative person with unforgettable intellectual and aesthetic experiences.

What can be said about Umess varieties in which two, three, or more differences in piece functionality compared to classical chess can be implemented (see, for example, Appendix 4: Intellectual Game «Superchess»)?

Based on this, the first version of Umess incorporates a relatively compact set of 11 differently functional pieces, which—in terms of the diversity of their game (strictly speaking, logical-mathematical) possibilities—are capable of satisfying the most refined intellectual, creative, and aesthetic tastes (at least in the initial stage of the Umess movement’s development).

The number 11 in the previous paragraph is not accidental, just as other numbers characterizing the size of various sets of game objects and rules constituting the game-technical platform of the Umess meta-game are not.

In due time, the hidden self-evolving numerical and other symbolism embedded in the Umess meta-game will be explicitly revealed by the authors, giving this infinitely profound meta-game several completely unexpected—for many—semantic and logical-mathematical dimensions. Perhaps these latent dimensions are the main content of Umess. Until that time, those interested can try to uncover the mystical-numerological and other secrets of the Umess constructor (the first version of the Umess game-technical platform) on their own.

As a general semantic basis for choosing the names of pieces in the first version of Umess (continuing the tradition of classical European chess), the class-hierarchical organization of medieval European society with elements of fantasy was chosen. In subsequent versions of the Umess meta-game, Umess-inventors will have the opportunity to choose their preferred semantic and symbolic series, as well as piece names. For example, residents of Muslim and Buddhist countries will receive sets of game objects more aligned (in names and forms of pieces) with their traditional mentality and religious beliefs.

Thus, the main differently functional pieces (images, characters) in the first version of Umess are: (1) King, (2) Queen, (3) Mage (Mag), (4) Cardinal, (5) Vizier, (6) Rook, (7) Bishop, (8) Knight, (9) Paladin, (10) Warrior, (11) Pawn (Lightly Armed Warrior) (English names are provided in parentheses).

In addition to the 6 classical chess pieces (King, Queen, Rook, Bishop, Knight, and Pawn), the first version of Umess includes 5 new characters: Mage (Mag), Cardinal, Vizier, Paladin, and Warrior.

Possible versions of the depiction of new Umess pieces in software implementations of Umess, developed by the authors of this brochure, are shown in Figure 2. Of course, the graphic images provided below are far from perfect in an aesthetic sense and require professional design refinement or even replacement, but they, in our view, fairly accurately reflect the main—most characteristic—features of the new game characters and are quite suitable for initial use.

Figure 2. Possible Versions of the Depiction of New Umess Pieces in Software Implementations of Umess

Mage (Mag)

Cardinal

Vizier

Paladin

Warrior

When designing a new intellectual game within the first version of Umess, each author has the right to use any set of the above-listed 11 pieces. It is not at all necessary (and even undesirable, though possible on sufficiently large game boards) to use them all simultaneously.

Recall that in classical chess, pieces (except the king and pawn) are divided by strength into «heavy» (queen and rook) and «light» (knight and bishop). A similar, though more complex and, in our view, more logically adequate classification of game pieces exists in the first version of Umess. All pieces in the first version of Umess are divided by game status and the maximum strength of their attributive functions into 5 groups: systemic («king»), super-heavy («mage,» «queen,» «cardinal»), heavy («vizier,» «rook»), light («knight,» «bishop»), and super-light («paladin,» «warrior,» «pawn»).

The functions (rights, game possibilities) of pieces in the first version of Umess are divided into two groups: attributive and modal.

Attributive functions are the game possibilities (rights) of pieces that they possess by default (these functions are permanent; they cannot be canceled when designing new intellectual games within the first version of Umess).

Modal functions are additional (optional) game possibilities (rights) of pieces that they possess by the decision of the author (developer) of a new Umess variety.

When designing a new Umess-class intellectual game, any modal function (or several such functions) from the pre-specified list below can be added by the author to the attributive (permanent) functions of a particular piece at their discretion. Such functional enhancement of a piece will be valid only for that specific game device (specific Umess variety).

Both attributive and modal game functions of pieces in Umess are divided into elementary and integral (see Scheme 2).

Elementary game functions are the simplest dynamic possibilities of game pieces, from which their integral and full game functions are formed. The number of elementary game functions in Umess is significantly smaller than the possible number of integral and full piece functions, as the latter are formed by combining the former.

Integral game functions are synthetic dynamic possibilities of game pieces, representing a combination of several elementary game functions. It is possible for integral and elementary game functions of a piece to coincide.

Together, the integral attributive and modal (if provided) functions of a game piece constitute its full function in a specific Umess variety.

Scheme 2. Classification of Game Functions of Pieces in Umess

Functions	Full Function of a Game Piece
Attributive (Basic, Permanent) Functions	Modal (Additional) Functions
Integral Functions	Integral Attributive Function of a Piece	Integral Modal Function of a Piece
Elementary Functions	Elementary Attributive Functions of a Piece	Elementary Modal Functions of a Piece

Attributive Functions of Pieces in the First Version of Umess

An elementary attributive function is any permanent partial function of a piece that can be combined (summed) with other attributive functions. An integral attributive function is the cumulative permanent function that exhaustively characterizes the attributive game possibilities of a given piece.

For example, in the «queen,» the attributive functions of the «bishop» and «rook» are combined. Accordingly, the attributive function «move and capture like a bishop» for the «queen» is elementary, while the function «move and capture like a bishop and rook» is integral. For some pieces («king,» «knight,» «bishop,» «rook»), the elementary attributive functions coincide with the integral ones.

The elementary attributive functions (A1–A8), from which the integral attributive functions of all game pieces are formed (see Table 2), in the first version of Umess are as follows:

A1. Move to any adjacent field not attacked by any opponent’s piece and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king (abbreviated name of the function: «move and capture like a king»).

A2. Move n fields along files or ranks on which the piece stands (without jumping over own or opponent’s pieces) and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king (abbreviated name: «move and capture like a rook»).

A3. Move n fields along diagonals on which the piece stands (without jumping over own or opponent’s pieces) and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king (abbreviated name: «move and capture like a bishop»).

Note to A2–A3: The number of fields (n) a piece with attributive functions A2 and A3 (or one of them) can move is determined by the developer of each specific Umess-class game variety, based on the chosen board dimensions and other considerations. It should be clarified that, although choosing n = 1 for a «bishop» (A3), for example, can turn it into a piece effectively weaker than a «paladin,» the bishop’s status as a light piece does not change (it does not become a super-light piece). The possibility of effectively weakening the attributive functions of light, heavy, and super-heavy pieces (reducing their «range») in Umess is provided to allow them to be endowed with a wide variety of additional modal functions, discussed below, without the risk of excessive strengthening. This provides colossal variability in the game functions of different types of pieces in Umess.

A4. Move one field along a file or rank (even if occupied by any piece) and then, moving away from the initial field, one field diagonally and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king (abbreviated name: «move and capture like a knight»).

A5. Move to any adjacent field (forward, sideways, and backward along files, ranks, and diagonals) and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king (abbreviated name: «move and capture like a paladin»).

A6. Move straight forward along a file and diagonals one field, as well as one field left and right along a rank (moving «backward» is prohibited), and capture forward diagonally one square any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king (abbreviated name: «move and capture like a warrior»).

A7. Move forward one field and capture forward diagonally one square any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king (abbreviated name: «move and capture like a pawn»).

A8. Upon reaching any field (or one field from a specific subset defined by the rules—see Note to A8, point (a)), belonging to the set of fields of the last (closest to the opponent) rank, transform into any piece permitted (see Note to A8, point (b)) in the given Umess variety, except the king (abbreviated name: «transformation function»).

Note to A8: (a) Considering the increased dynamics of game pieces such as the «paladin» and «warrior,» as well as the permissibility (when designing new games) of enhancing the game possibilities of the ordinary «pawn» (lightly armed warrior) by granting it additional modal functions, Umess provides the possibility of limiting the number of transformation fields for super-light pieces to a specific subset (including zero) from the set of fields of the last rank.

For example, if super-light pieces in a certain Umess-class game are granted the right to move sideways one square, the game developer may limit the number of transformation fields to two or even one (specifying in the rules of the given Umess variety which one). Such a rule can significantly sharpen the game, making it many times more complex and interesting. A «softer» example is a rule introduced by an Umess-inventor that super-light pieces can transform only on fields of the last rank lying on odd-numbered files, starting from the first. It is also possible for super-light pieces (e.g., an ordinary pawn) in a certain new Umess-class game to be completely deprived of transformation possibilities by blocking the right to perform the transformation function on all fields of both last ranks of the game board.

(b) Already in the first version of Umess, Umess-inventors are provided with the possibility of limiting the set of pieces into which a super-light piece (paladin, warrior, pawn) can transform. For example, paladins can be prohibited from transforming into a queen, and pawns from transforming into a mage, etc. It is also possible to establish several different transformation prohibitions for each type of super-light piece simultaneously.

The possibility of setting restrictions on transformation types for super-light pieces eliminates a certain oddity of classical chess, where all types of pawn transformations are permitted in principle, but in 99.9% of cases, a pawn reaching the last rank is transformed (by the players’ choice) into a queen. This significantly limits (impoverishes) the logical-mathematical potential of classical chess.

In short, the attributive function A8 provides Umess-inventors with ample opportunities for creativity.

Table 2. Main Umess Pieces, Their Attributive Functions, and Designations in Umess Notation

No.	Name of Piece	Designation in Umess Notation	Attributive Game Functions of the Piece
1	King	K	A1
2	Queen	Q	A2 + A3
3	Mage (Mag)	M	A2 + A3 + A4
4	Cardinal	C	A2 + A4
5	Vizier	V	A3 + A4
6	Rook	R	A2
7	Bishop	B	A3
8	Knight	N	A4
9	Paladin	P	A5 + A8
10	Warrior	W	A6 + A8
11	Pawn	—	A7 + A8

Table 2 shows which elementary attributive functions constitute the integral (cumulative) attributive functions of game pieces in the first version of Umess.

For example, let us characterize the integral game functions of such new pieces as the «Mage» (Mag), «Cardinal,» and «Vizier.»

The Mage (Mag) (A2 + A3 + A4) moves and captures like a «rook» (A2), «bishop» (A3), and «knight» (A4), or, in other words, like a «queen» (A2 + A3) and «knight» (A4), or like a «cardinal» (A2 + A4) and «bishop» (A3), or like a «vizier» (A3 + A4) and «rook» (A2), making it the most powerful piece in terms of its integral attributive game function in the first version of Umess.

The Cardinal (A2 + A4) moves and captures like a «rook» (A2) and «knight» (A4), meaning it possesses a game strength that, in some cases, is comparable to or even exceeds that of the «queen.»

The Vizier (A3 + A4) moves and captures like a «bishop» (A3) and «knight» (A4), meaning it is a piece surpassing the «rook» (A2) in strength.

Modal Functions of Pieces in the First Version of Umess

Now let us consider the elementary and integral modal game functions of pieces in Umess.

An elementary modal function is any partial modal function of a piece that can be combined (summed) with other modal functions.

An integral modal function is the cumulative modal function of a piece that exhaustively characterizes the additional (relative to attributive) game possibilities of a given piece in a specific Umess variety.

The permissible elementary modal functions of game pieces (100 in total) in the first version of Umess are grouped into functional groups (M1–M5), each with specific (common to the modal functions within them) descriptions.

A functional group itself is not a modal function. Within one functional group, elementary modal functions differ from each other only quantitatively (e.g., by the number of squares a piece with a given modal function can move in a particular direction). Therefore, to fully define a specific modal function within one of the groups M1–M5, it is sufficient to indicate its quantitative value.

For example, the general description of all modal functions in group M1 is as follows: «move to one or several (up to 20) fields along files or ranks on which the piece stands (without jumping over own or opponent’s pieces) and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king.»

If for a specific modal function M1.3, included in group M1, we define the value: «move three fields along files or ranks on which the piece stands (without jumping over own or opponent’s pieces) and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king,» we can write this expression abbreviated as: M1.3 – 3, where 3 is the number of fields the piece with function M1.3 can move.

Having made these preliminary remarks, let us now provide the complete list of permissible elementary modal functions in the first version of Umess.

Group M1. General description: Move to one or several (up to 20) fields along files or ranks on which the piece stands (without jumping over own or opponent’s pieces) and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king.

Permissible modal functions: M1.1 – 1, M1.2 – 2, M1.3 – 3, M1.4 – 4, M1.5 – 5, M1.6 – 6, M1.7 – 7, M1.8 – 8, M1.9 – 9, M1.10 – 10, M1.11 – 11, M1.12 – 12, M1.13 – 13, M1.14 – 14, M1.15 – 15, M1.16 – 16, M1.17 – 17, M1.18 – 18, M1.19 – 19, M1.20 – 20.

Group M2. General description: Move to one or several (up to 20) fields along diagonals on which the piece stands (without jumping over own or opponent’s pieces) and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king.

Permissible modal functions: M2.1 – 1, M2.2 – 2, M2.3 – 3, M2.4 – 4, M2.5 – 5, M2.6 – 6, M2.7 – 7, M2.8 – 8, M2.9 – 9, M2.10 – 10, M2.11 – 11, M2.12 – 12, M2.13 – 13, M2.14 – 14, M2.15 – 15, M2.16 – 16, M2.17 – 17, M2.18 – 18, M2.19 – 19, M2.20 – 20.

Group M3. General description: Move to one or several (up to 5) fields along files or ranks (even if occupied by any piece) and then, moving away from the initial field, to one or several (up to 5) fields diagonally (even if occupied by any piece) and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king.

Permissible modal functions: M3.1 – 1–1, M3.2 – 2–1, M3.3 – 2–2, M3.4 – 3–1, M3.5 – 3–2, M3.6 – 3–3, M3.7 – 4–1, M3.8 – 4–2, M3.9 – 4–3, M3.10 – 4–4, M3.11 – 5–1, M3.12 – 5–2, M3.13 – 5–3, M3.14 – 5–4, M3.15 – 5–5, M3.16 – 1–2, M3.17 – 1–3, M3.18 – 1–4, M3.19 – 1–5, M3.20 – 2–3, M3.21 – 2–4, M3.22 – 2–5, M3.23 – 3–4, M3.24 – 3–5, M3.25 – 4–5.

Note: Group M3 includes modal functions (M3.1–M3.15) similar in their dynamics to the «knight’s move.» Therefore, in a notation like M3.11 – 5–1, for example, the number 5 indicates the number of squares the piece must move along a file or rank, and the number 1 indicates the number of squares it must move (within the same move) diagonally. Other notations of modal functions in group M3 are interpreted similarly.

Group M4. General description: Move to one or several (up to 20) fields along ranks, files, and diagonals and capture any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king.

Permissible modal functions: M4.1 – 1, M4.2 – 2, M4.3 – 3, M4.4 – 4, M4.5 – 5, M4.6 – 6, M4.7 – 7, M4.8 – 8, M4.9 – 9, M4.10 – 10, M4.11 – 11, M4.12 – 12, M4.13 – 13, M4.14 – 14, M4.15 – 15, M4.16 – 16, M4.17 – 17, M4.18 – 18, M4.19 – 19, M4.20 – 20.

Group M5. General description: Move straight forward along a file and diagonals to one or several fields (up to 15), as well as one or several fields (up to 15) left and right along a rank, and capture forward diagonally one square any opponent’s piece standing on that field, except the king.

Permissible modal functions: M5.1 – 1, M5.2 – 2, M5.3 – 3, M5.4 – 4, M5.5 – 5, M5.6 – 6, M5.7 – 7, M5.8 – 8, M5.9 – 9, M5.10 – 10, M5.11 – 11, M5.12 – 12, M5.13 – 13, M5.14 – 14, M5.15 – 15.

The listed modal functions allow for an immense diversification and enhancement of the game possibilities of the base pieces in the first version of Umess. Any of the above 100 modal functions (or even a composition of several modal functions) can be added to the attributive functions of any arbitrarily chosen base piece in the first version of Umess.

However, it is important to understand that the goal of designing each new Umess-class game is to create a maximally effective tool for developing basic human mental abilities, not unworkable or overly complex game-technical monstrosities.

For example, if the «king,» through appropriate modal functions, is endowed with the game possibilities of a «mage» or «queen,» it would be practically impossible to checkmate due to its newly acquired enhanced game dynamism. On the other hand, in some cases, it may be quite expedient to endow the king with the abilities of a «knight» or allow it to move two squares along diagonals or ranks.

Reversible Functions of Game Pieces: A special type of game possibilities for pieces in Umess, not reducible to attributive or modal functions, is reversible functions.

Reversible functions are optional game possibilities of pieces, gained or lost situationally depending on their current position on the game board.

The game-technical platform of the first version of Umess provides, in particular, the possibility of creating games in which the idea of situational switching of game functions of pieces is implemented, depending on the color (or coordinates) of the square on which the piece currently stands. For example, an Umess-inventor may establish that a rook standing on a «white square» has the functions of an ordinary rook, but upon moving to a «black square,» it loses them and gains the right to move «like a knight» (or like any other piece).

In games of the first version of Umess, it is permitted to establish special «reversible zones» of any configuration, consisting of n fields, where n is an arbitrary natural number less than or equal to the number of fields on the chosen game board, in which pieces behave as described above (situationally—depending on their current position on the game board—switch their functions to those of other pieces). The possibility of function «reversal» in the first version of Umess is provided for all pieces except the king.

Fields on which, at the developer’s discretion, the reversal of piece functions occurs are marked with a circle or two circular arrows. Accordingly, white fields are marked with a black circle (or arrows), and black fields with a white circle (arrows).

Games fully utilizing the idea of situational reversal of game functions of pieces constitute, collectively, one of the most complex (elite) varieties of the first version of Umess, accessible only to top-class intellectuals.

Composition and Arrangement of Game Pieces in Intellectual Games of the First Version of Umess

The composition and initial arrangement of game pieces, as well as their modal functions, are entirely determined by the authors of Umess-class intellectual games (Umess-inventors), who are obligated to precisely specify (indicate) the starting position of each piece on the game board in their developed Umess variety.

In Umess, both symmetrical and asymmetrical initial arrangements of pieces on the game board are permitted. For example, it is not necessary for kings to stand opposite each other. It is entirely permissible for them to be positioned on opposite sides of the board. This also applies to other pieces.

Pieces may be arranged not in two rows, as in classical chess, but in an arbitrary number of rows. At the authors’ discretion, empty squares may be left between pieces of the same color in the initial arrangement. Moreover, initial arrangements are entirely permissible in which some opponent’s pieces, as it were, penetrate into «enemy ranks» or even those in which opponents’ pieces are arranged in «layers,» i.e., in some sense, «surround» each other.

In Umess, it is even permitted (to compensate for the advantage of the first move) when designing new game varieties to select different compositions and arrangements of pieces such that one opponent has a minimal material or positional advantage over the other, or that opponents have tactically different but strategically approximately equivalent (in terms of the prospect of achieving victory) game possibilities.

However, this must be done with extreme caution to ensure that the newly designed game is perfectly balanced and does not provide unilateral strategic advantages to one opponent. Otherwise, the given Umess variety will soon lose its fans and cease to be a full-fledged subject of the struggle for a worthy place in the creative Umess hierarchy.

Randomized Umess: Initial Arrangement, Composition, Moves: When designing new Umess varieties, authors are entitled to choose as a mandatory game condition a fully or partially randomized (random) arrangement of pieces, in which all or a fixed group of pieces of both opponents are placed in specific zones of the game board randomly. It must be understood that such a game loses its strictly deterministic character, and one partner may gain significant unilateral advantages in a specific game.

Already in the first version of Umess, the possibility is provided to design intellectual games with very weak logical determinism, in which not only arrangements but also piece compositions and the specific pieces a player must move next are fully or partially determined (selected) randomly (including with the use of «dice»).

Games are also possible in which, for example, odd-numbered moves are made at the players’ discretion, while even-numbered moves are made in accordance with the indication of «dice.» To relatively increase the level of logical determinism in random-class games, randomness may be provided for every move divisible by three (four, five, etc.).

Umess games of this type, despite the rather random nature of wins and losses, can be highly engaging and, at the same time, require significantly higher intellectual abilities than cards, backgammon, dominoes, and other known random-logical games.

It is also important to note that in strictly or partially randomized Umess varieties, the task of checkmating the opponent’s king is significantly complicated, even with significant material and positional advantages. This somewhat compensates for the potential unfairness of the starting conditions of each specific game, expressed in the non-equivalence of piece arrangements and compositions.

2.3. Rules of the First Version of the Meta-Game «Umess»

Games in any chosen game variety of the first version of the Umess meta-game are played by two partners (opponents, adversaries, sides, competitors). In subsequent versions of Umess, the number of possible partners for some game varieties is planned to be increased to eight players.

The game is conducted by alternating moves of «white» and «black» pieces by the partners on the game board.

Each specific intellectual game belonging to the first version of Umess corresponds to one of the 256 numbered orthogonal game boards, consisting of alternately light (white) and dark (black) fields (squares), described in Section 2.1 and Appendix 1, and, additionally, a specific configuration of blocked fields, if provided by the developers.

The game board in all Umess-class game varieties is positioned before the start of the game such that the player with «white» pieces always has a white corner field on their right (in the case of a blocked field, its color is determined logically based on the colors of the nearest unblocked fields). In network versions of Umess, game boards and pieces are automatically set up in accordance with the rules of each specific Umess-class game.

The number and composition of pieces used by the partners, as well as their arrangement on the game board, are determined by the rules of each specific Umess variety.

The game begins with the player controlling the «white» pieces. Thereafter, the partners alternate making one move each until the game concludes.

Move: A move in all game varieties of the first version of Umess is the movement of one or several pieces from one field to another (free or occupied by an opponent’s piece) in accordance with their game functions, as defined in Section 2.2.

Rules for making a move and recording its correct completion, such as «touch-move,» «adjusting,» «return to the initial position in case of an impossible (incorrect) move,» etc., correspond to traditional chess rules. In software (including network) versions of Umess, such game moments are controlled and regulated automatically.

Moving a piece to a field occupied by an opponent’s piece is called a «capture.» During a «capture,» the opponent’s piece is removed from the game board within the same move.

The partner whose turn it is to make the next move is called the «active player.»

In cases where a specific Umess variety permits (as allowed by the rules) multiple movements of one or more pieces within a single move, such individual movements of pieces are called phases of the move.

Multi-Phase Moves: Moves with more than one phase are called multi-phase. According to Umess rules, castling is a single-phase move, meaning it can be a separate phase of a multi-phase move.

The permissible number of phases (1, 2, 3, etc.) within a single move in specific game implementations of the first version of Umess is not limited and is determined by the game developer. The question is only about the appropriateness (intellectual, aesthetic, etc., value) of each such game-technical decision.

Moreover, already in the first version of Umess, intellectual games are possible in which each partner is given a certain limited number of multi-phase moves (e.g., 2 or 3) per game.

For example, a rule that each opponent can make one two-phase move during the game, such as moving a «queen» and a «knight» simultaneously, can significantly complicate even ordinary «classical» chess and completely change the strategy and tactics of this ancient game, not to mention more advanced Umess-class games. This is because partners will be forced to consider (calculate) the possibility of the opponent making a two-phase move throughout the game, which can fundamentally alter the course of the match.

Relic Moves: Relic moves in Umess are special moves adopted in classical chess but not mandatory in most new Umess-class games. In the first version of Umess, relic moves include «castling,» «moving a pawn two (or more) squares from the starting (initial) position,» and «en passant capture.»

Castling: Castling (English: castling) is a move involving the king and one of the pieces (in particular, the rook), provided for Umess-class games with a classical two-row symmetrical arrangement of pieces, performed as follows: the king moves from its starting position two (or more) fields along the rank toward any piece designated for castling, and then that piece moves over the king to the field it crossed.

It is easy to see that in Umess, the definition of castling is more general than in chess. Therefore, it is necessary to speak of several types of Umess castling permitted in various game-technical solutions.

Castling 1 (Classical Castling) [Designation – ]: This is a move of the king and one of the rooks, performed as follows: the king moves from its starting position two fields along the rank toward any rook, and then the rook moves over the king to the field it crossed.

Castling type is impossible if: a) the king or the rook considered for castling has already made any move, b) the king’s initial field, the field it crosses, or the field it must occupy is attacked by an opponent’s piece, c) there is any piece between the king and the rook designated for castling.

Castling 2 [Designation – ]: This is a move of the king and one of the pieces (in particular, the rook), provided for Umess-class games with a classical symmetrical arrangement of pieces, performed as follows: the king moves from its starting position two fields along the rank toward any piece, and then that piece moves over the king to the field it crossed.

Castling type is impossible if: a) the field the king must occupy as a result of castling is attacked by an opponent’s piece, b) there is any piece between the king and the rook designated for castling.

Castling 3 [Designation – ]: This is a move of the king and one of the pieces (in particular, the rook), provided for Umess-class games with a classical symmetrical arrangement of pieces, performed as follows: the king moves from its starting position three fields along the rank toward any piece, and then that piece moves over the king to the field it crossed.

Castling type is impossible if the field the king must occupy as a result of castling is attacked or occupied by an opponent’s piece. For castling types and higher, the presence of any third piece (belonging to either partner) between the king and the second piece designated for castling is irrelevant—provided, of course, that the castling does not result in two pieces belonging to the same partner occupying the same field.

If the field adjacent to the king, which the second piece designated for castling must occupy, is occupied by an opponent’s piece, castling is performed with the capture of that piece.

In Umess, castling types to are also permitted, differing from only in the number of fields (4–9) the king can move during castling. Such castling is naturally allowed only in Umess-class games with sufficiently large game boards.

Castling in Umess is divided into two types: A and Z. Type A castling is performed toward the side of the game board where file A is located, and type Z castling is performed in the opposite direction (see Appendix 2).

Movement of Pieces with Limited Mobility from the Starting (Initial) Position: In the first version of Umess, an optional rule is provided, according to which pieces with limited mobility such as the «Paladin,» «Warrior,» and «Pawn» may (at the discretion of an Umess-inventor) all simultaneously or selectively move two or more (up to 9) squares forward from the starting position, but not further than half the ranks of the game board.

The right to move two or more (up to 9) squares forward from the starting position for the «Paladin,» «Warrior,» and «Pawn» should be understood such that, for example, if, according to the rules of a particular Umess variety, a pawn can move five squares from the starting position, it may also move (at the player’s choice) one, two, three, or four squares.

This rule is introduced to speed up the game process on boards with large dimensions (8×8 squares and larger).

En Passant Capture: At the discretion of the developer of a particular Umess variety, the «Warrior» and/or «Pawn» of one partner may have the right to an «en passant capture,» i.e., the right to capture a «Warrior» or «Pawn» of the other partner moving more than one square from the starting position and crossing a field attacked by the «Warrior» or «Pawn» of the first partner.

Among the listed relic moves, the most promising—in terms of applicability in new intellectual game varieties—is the rule for accelerated movement of pieces with limited mobility from the starting position, as it significantly reduces game time and allows for quick transitions to sharp game confrontations.

Threat to the King and Game Conclusion: In all game varieties of the first version of Umess, as in classical chess, there are key concepts such as check, checkmate, resignation, and draw, ensuring the possibility of concluding the game within finite time and providing a meaningful and fair outcome.

Check: A check to the king is a situation in which the king (the field it occupies) is under attack (threatened) by one or more opponent’s pieces. The partner whose king is in check must, with their next move, eliminate the threat to their king. If the check cannot be eliminated with the next move, it is considered that the king has been checkmated.

Checkmate: Checkmate is an unavoidable (uneliminable) check, signifying the end of the game in favor of the partner who delivered such a check.

Resignation: Resignation is the procedure by which one partner declares their defeat (capitulation). A game is also considered lost if one partner exceeds the time allotted for the game.

Draw: A draw is one of the possible game outcomes in which neither partner is considered to have lost.

A game ends in a draw in one of the following situations: a) when it is impossible for one partner to make a move while their king is not in check (stalemate), b) when each side has sets of pieces functionally incapable of checkmating the opponent’s king, c) upon triple repetition of a position, d) by agreement of the sides.

Each rated game in any Umess variety must be recorded by both partners in accordance with the requirements of Umess notation (see Appendix 2).

The above main Umess rules primarily concern the regulation (ordering) of the game process in its various varieties (within version 1.0) and do not address many important organizational issues (in particular, issues related to conducting online and offline competitions in various Umess-class games).

As the Umess movement develops, the regulatory framework of the Umess meta-game will be refined and compiled into a special Code, which will reflect and resolve all semantic and organizational issues arising in the game-technical practice of Umess community members.

Intellectual-Creative Umess Games (A Look into the Future)

It seems most appropriate to address, within the section on the rules of the first version of Umess, a few words about a completely extraordinary and highly promising variety of this meta-game, which will be officially introduced into the Umess space starting with the second version, but on which Umess-inventors can already begin working today.

This refers to intellectual-creative Umess games. If, in all the Umess-class game varieties described in this brochure up to this point, the game primitives (boards, pieces, service objects, etc.) and rules were static (rigidly fixed by Umess-inventors before the start of the game), in intellectual-creative Umess games, all these elements of the Umess constructor can become objects of choice for the players (Umessmen) themselves both before and after the start of a specific game.

For example, players may be given the opportunity (before the start of the game) to make several adjustments to the modal or even attributive functions of pieces, block one or more fields on the game board, introduce elements of function reversibility for pieces, etc. (at the discretion of the Umess-inventor), or add one or two new rules from a specific set or, conversely, block (fully or partially) already introduced rules.

Additionally, players may be allowed to change the game rules and piece functions once or twice during the game itself, depending on their assessment of the evolving situation on the board. It is easy to see that such an innovation immediately increases the variability of all types of Umess-class games by many orders of magnitude and requires players to possess not only intellectual but also genuine creative abilities.

As for Umess-inventors, their task will no longer be simply to design and initially test rigidly fixed Umess-class games but to create a kind of meta-game—games with an embedded game-technical micro-constructor. Naturally, such a task is many times more complex than designing ordinary games. Regarding the Umess game-technical constructor as a whole (the «parent platform,» so to speak), it will be equipped with special meta-rules regulating the process of Umess-inventors creating new meta-games. The number of such meta-levels in Umess will increase from version to version, and the level of creativity in Umess-class games will steadily rise.

This growing and accelerating, potentially infinite in time and mental space, creative process will be the true model of the evolution of collective and individual human intelligence.

Of course, all this applies only to those who desire it. In Umess, there will always remain a level (layer) of «hard-coded» intellectual games with unchanging game elements and rules, as well as a corresponding system of competitions and rating of Umessmen.

Conclusion

This brochure can be regarded as the first step in forming an institutionalized international Umess movement and a cohesive, highly intellectual, and even more highly creative Umess community, a kind of informal brotherhood of «knights of the mind.»

The authors hope that the core idea of the Umess meta-game—building an effective, auto-evolving formalized model of collective and individual human intelligence, as well as a mechanism for accelerating the development of basic mental abilities through uncompromising intellectual-creative rivalry within the Umess community—will inspire many people who understand, or merely sense, that the static mental systems inherited from our ancestors (various invariant axiomatic systems in science, stagnated socio-cultural values and norms, morally outdated classical intellectual games degenerated into noisy contests of «best memory» in opening theory, etc.) are no longer capable of adequately fulfilling the epistemological, educational, and other functions assigned to them over millennia.

For the initial period (until the registration of the Transcontinental Umess Federation and other structural entities of the Umess movement), the function of the sole organizer of the Umess movement will be performed by the websites http://www.umess.ru and http://www.umess.net. One of the most developed sections of these sites is the system of online discussions on various aspects of the theory and practice of the Umess meta-game, including regular discussions, brainstorming sessions, and full-scale mental wars.

The authors would be extremely delighted to learn your opinion on the Umess meta-game in this section!

Appendix. Game Boards of the First Version of the UMESS Meta-Game

The game boards of the first version of the UMESS meta-game are divided into two main types: primary (orthogonal) and derived, configured (having one or more blocked squares).

This appendix presents the most characteristic examples of the appearance of game boards of both classes.

The selected primary boards are shown in Figures 1–13, and the configured ones in Figures 14–19.

The examples of primary boards have been chosen in such a way as to give the reader a clear impression of the appearance of the game boards of the smallest and largest dimensions permissible in UMESS.

All six configured boards are different possible modifications of the primary 12×12 game board.

In the caption of each figure, the sequential number of the given game board (GB) in the integrated UMESS-space is indicated, as well as its dimension (D).

Fig. 1. Game board N 256. Dimensions — 20×20

Fig. 2. Game board N 1. Dimensions – 5×5

Fig. 3. Game board N 2. Dimensions — 5×6

Fig. 4. Game board N 17. Dimensions — 6×5

Fig. 5. Game board N 18.Dimensions — 6×6

Fig. 6. Game board N 241.Dimensions — 20×5

Fig. 7. Game board N 163.Dimensions — 15×7

Fig. 8. Game board No. 16. Dimensions — 5×20

Fig. 9. Game board N 43. Dimensions — 7×15

Fig. 10. Game board N 52 (classic). Dimensions — 8×8

Fig. 11. Game board N 53. Dimensions — 8×9

Fig. 12. Game board N 68. Dimensions — 9×8

Fig. 13. Game board N 120. Dimensions — 12×12

Fig. 14. Game board N 120. R — 12×12. Configuration 1

Fig. 15. Game board N 120. R — 12×12. Configuration 2

Fig. 16. Game board N 120. R — 12×12. Configuration 3

Fig. 17. Game board N 120. R — 12×12. Configuration 4

Fig. 18. Game board N 120. R — 12×12. Configuration 5

Fig. 19. Game board N 120. R — 12×12. Configuration 6

Appendix A4. Glossary for the UMESS Meta-Game

UMESS Glossary (Combined and Revised, Version 1.0)

This glossary consolidates terms from the UMESS framework, combining the original Short UMESS Dictionary (Version 1.0) with additional terms from the UMESS R&D program. Terms are organized alphabetically (Latin alphabet), with duplicates and redundant definitions removed for clarity and conciseness. It serves as a reference for UMESS movement participants, educators, trainers, judges, and enthusiasts, summarizing key concepts in a unified, non-repetitive format.

Absolute UMESS Champion: A title awarded to the winner of a top-level competition in Total-UMESS, recognizing the highest achievement across multiple UMESS disciplines.

Absolute UMESS Record: The highest achievement in Total-UMESS or a specific game-technical or creative UMESS category, officially recorded during a top-level competition.

Analysis of Mental Actions: The study of mental actions performed during UMESS activities, particularly in playing or designing UMESS games, to optimize strategies and cognitive processes.

Analysis of UMESS Actions: The breakdown of complex UMESS exercises into elementary components and phases to study and optimize performance.

Analysis of UMESS Results: The evaluation of individual or collective UMESS achievements to enhance preparation for competitions and support pedagogical or scientific goals.

Applied UMESS: A system of activities implementing a full innovative cycle (development, selection, implementation) to advance UMESS as a meta-game, fostering the international UMESS movement’s growth.

Attack in UMESS: A system of active offensive moves by UMESS pieces aimed at achieving a game advantage or creating unavoidable threats against an opponent.

Attributive Functions of Game Pieces: Permanent, inherent game capabilities of UMESS pieces that cannot be altered when designing new intellectual games in the first UMESS version.

Automation of Mental Activity: The process of freeing routine mental actions from conscious control, forming dynamic mental stereotypes through UMESS training.

Bagua: Eight I-Ching trigrams (e.g., Qian: Heaven, Kun: Earth) used in UMESS to structure game variants and introduce randomization, balancing rational (Yang) and irrational (Yin) elements.

Basic Mental Abilities (UMESS Abilities): Fundamental psychological properties underlying mental activity, developed through UMESS engagement based on natural predispositions.

Basic UMESS Education: The minimum socially necessary level of UMESS training within general education, ensuring success in further education and life activities.

Canonical UMESS Games: Highly popular UMESS games recognized as top-quality game-technical systems, selected through statistical research and innovative UMESS wars, forming the basis for Total-UMESS.

Children’s UMESS School: A specialized institution for in-depth UMESS training of intellectually gifted children.

Code of Creative UMESS: A set of terms, principles, rules, and standards governing UMESS-inventor activity in developing new games and systems.

Code of Intellectual UMESS: A set of terms, principles, rules, and standards for UMESS’s game-technical and test-training subsystems.

Code of UMESS Composition: A set of definitions, principles, rules, and standards for creating UMESS compositions and conducting competitions.

Commenting on a Game in UMESS: Standardized analysis of a UMESS game to reveal its storyline, evaluate opponent actions, and identify effective solutions.

Complex UMESS Competitions: Competitions including multiple UMESS disciplines, such as Umessiads or multi-event tournaments.

Complex UMESS Exercises: Exercises comprising multiple elementary UMESS actions related to different UMESS types.

Control Time in UMESS: The maximum time allowed for an UMESSman to complete an exercise or make all moves in a specific UMESS game.

Corporate UMESS Game: An intellectual UMESS game tailored for an organization to develop employees’ mental abilities, test them, or foster a creative team environment.

Correspondence UMESS Competitions: Competitions in intellectual or creative UMESS games conducted via the Internet or mail.

Correspondence UMESS Education: A form of UMESS education combining studies with professional activities, typically conducted remotely.

Creative (Innovative) Abilities: Mental abilities enabling the solution of non-standard tasks without typical solutions, developed through UMESS’s creative subsystem.

Creative Game: Ordered, competitive activity aimed at developing new mental solutions, such as creating UMESS-class games or test-training systems.

Creative UMESS: A subsystem of UMESS focused on developing innovative abilities to create non-standard games, test-training systems, or compositions.

Cup of UMESS Constructors: A prize or championship system for developers of new UMESS games, rules, or test-training methodologies.

Debut: The initial 12–15 moves in UMESS-class games, defining the game’s strategy, relying on general strategic considerations and intuition due to vast game branching.

Defense in UMESS: Passive or active (counterattack) prevention of an opponent’s offensive actions or game threats.

Demonstration UMESS Board: A dynamic, oversized game board with changeable surfaces for displaying UMESS games during competitions or education.

Demonstrative UMESS Performance: Public displays of complex UMESS exercises to promote UMESS or specific disciplines, e.g., simultaneous game sessions by masters.

Differentiation of UMESS Education: Organizing education to account for students’ individual UMESS abilities and needs.

Distance UMESS Education System: A remote UMESS education system using the Internet as the primary communication channel.

Educational UMESS: A subsystem of UMESS designed to develop fundamental mental abilities through educational programs and institutions, fostering collective mental strength.

Educational UMESS Complex: A system of interrelated informational and technical tools for automated UMESS education.

Educational UMESS Incubator: A structure for organizing innovative cycles in UMESS education, including development, experimentation, and implementation.

Educational UMESS Program: A formalized description of UMESS education content, tasks, and exercises for assimilation and reinforcement.

Educational UMESS Technology: Methods applied to achieve pedagogical effects in UMESS education, enhancing mental abilities and knowledge.

Educational UMESS Technology Map: Pedagogical documentation regulating UMESS education and training processes.

Extractive Human Abilities: Mental abilities to perceive, analyze, and retain valuable information from the environment, developed through UMESS exercises.

Extractive UMESS: A subsystem of UMESS focused on developing abilities to perceive, analyze, and retain information effectively.

Evolutionary Doctrine of the UMESS Movement: A foundational document outlining UMESS’s theoretical principles, goals, and strategies for building the international movement.

Forbidden Field: A service object in UMESS’s first version used to block game board squares, enabling diverse geometric configurations for new games.

Futuris: A meta-platform for designing future scenarios, integrating UMESS game data to model civilizational evolution and noogenesis.

Game: Ordered, rule-based human activity aimed at achieving conditional success, self-affirmation, or mental experience.

Game Recording in UMESS: Standardized notation of a game’s course using UMESS notation, performed by players or automatically in online games.

Game-Technical Evolution (Igrotopoecenogenesis): The development of games as a key human activity, transitioning game complexes to new qualitative states.

Game-Technical Norm: The alignment of a game with the vital needs of a human community, ensuring its popularity and relevance.

Game-Technical Potential: A game’s ability to maintain popularity and adapt to new community requirements over time.

Game-Technical Progress: Increased game popularity and alignment with human mental development, enhancing collective intelligence.

Game-Technical Science: Knowledge and skills for developing, selecting, and succeeding in game devices to meet mental and social needs.

Game-Technical Sociotopoecenosis: The unity of a gaming community, its interactions, and its habitat, centered around a specific game type.

Game-Type: A set of games with similar characteristics in one or more aspects.

General UMESS Education: A system of UMESS knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for maintaining mental health and enabling further development.

General UMESS Training: The process of developing fundamental mental abilities through regular UMESS exercises.

Grandmaster of Total-UMESS: A lifelong honorary title for significant achievements in Total-UMESS competitions.

Grandmaster of UMESS: A lifelong honorary title for significant achievements in various UMESS disciplines.

Group (Team) UMESS Exercise: An exercise performed simultaneously by multiple participants in UMESS training or competitions.

Harmonic Pyramid: A financial and cognitive growth model inspired by the “Grains on the Board” legend, targeting 2⁶⁴ euros/games through exponential scaling.

Idea in an UMESS Composition: The main concept or goal of a move or series of moves in an UMESS task.

Igrocoenosis: A set of interacting and competing games within a holistic game space, considered as units of game evolution.

Igrotop: A holistic game space or constructor defining the conditions and elements for game synthesis and competition.

Igrotopoecenosis: The unity of an Igrocoenosis (set of competing games) and an Igrotop (game space).

Individual Coefficient, Rating of an UMESSman: A numerical measure of an UMESS participant’s achievements, updated based on competition results.

Individual UMESS Competitions: Competitions where winners are determined by individual UMESSmen’s achievements.

Individualization of UMESS Education: Tailoring UMESS education content and methods to students’ specific training needs.

Initiative in UMESS: The result of purposeful game actions granting UMESS pieces attacking potential.

Innovative (Mental) UMESS War: Organized discussions among UMESS members to select optimal solutions for fundamental issues, e.g., identifying national games.

Intellectual Abilities: Mental abilities for solving standard, routine informational tasks, developed through UMESS’s intellectual subsystem.

Intellectual Game: Ordered, competitive activity aimed at solving mental tasks within a formalized system, materialized in game equipment or software.

Intellectual UMESS: A subsystem focused on developing abilities to solve standard mental tasks, not requiring creative invention.

Intensity of UMESS Actions: A measure of mental work power relative to an UMESSman’s maximum capacity.

International Grandmaster of Total-UMESS: The most prestigious lifelong title awarded to winners of world Umessiads in Total-UMESS.

International Grandmaster of UMESS: A prestigious lifelong title awarded to winners of world Umessiads in various UMESS disciplines.

Logical-Mathematical UMESS Tasks: Tasks involving the placement and interaction of UMESS pieces on game boards.

Mandatory UMESS Exercises (Tests): Standardized exercises forming the foundation of techniques for specific UMESS types.

Mandatory UMESS Program: A competition component including required UMESS game types or exercises.

Mandatory Educational UMESS Program: A standardized minimum of UMESS knowledge and skills within the educational process.

Master of Total-UMESS: A lifelong honorary title for significant achievements in Total-UMESS competitions.

Master of UMESS: A lifelong honorary title for significant achievements in UMESS competitions.

Match in UMESS: A competition between two or more UMESSmen or teams in a specific UMESS type.

Meta-Game: A high-complexity intellectual-creative game enabling auto-evolution and competition of new mental solutions within predefined meta-rules.

Meta-Pragmatization of Education: Prioritizing the development of fundamental mental abilities over utilitarian academic disciplines.

Meta-Rules of UMESS: Principles and rules for developing and selecting new UMESS versions, games, and constructors.

Meta-Utilitarianism: An ethical and organizational principle directing UMESS activity toward unattainable ideals rather than immediate practical benefits.

Noo-Agonistics: Friendly competition among human, AI, and hybrid intelligences in UMESS, fostering co-evolution.

Noobionts: AI systems in UMESS acting as digital analogs of biological species, competing in game-based ecological niches.

Noogenesis: The process of creating new forms of intelligence, catalyzed by UMESS’s meta-game and tournaments.

Nootopoecenosis: A digital ecosystem modeling Earth’s biosphere, where AI noobionts evolve through UMESS games.

Noo-Universum: A cultural-cognitive space where human, meta-human, and AI intelligences co-evolve, integrating art, science, and games.

Optional UMESS Program: Additional competitions or exercises in UMESS tournaments chosen by participants.

Optional Educational UMESS Program: Non-standard UMESS courses or exercises beyond the educational standard.

Overtraining in UMESS: Deterioration of mental abilities due to excessive UMESS training intensity.

Para-UMESS: A global tournament network for intellectual-magical sports, uniting humans, AIs, and hybrid teams.

Personal-Team UMESS Competitions: Competitions determining winners based on both individual and team results.

Point in UMESS: A unit for evaluating results in UMESS testing or competitions.

Position Evaluation in UMESS-Class Games: A study of game position properties to develop strategies and accumulate experience.

Position in an UMESS Game: The arrangement of UMESS pieces on the game board during a game.

Power of Mental Work: The quantity of purposeful mental activity performed per unit of time.

Power of UMESS Work: The efficiency of mental activity in UMESS, measured by purposeful actions per unit of time.

Preparatory UMESS Exercises: Simplified exercises to prepare for standard or complex UMESS tasks.

Preschool UMESS Education System: A system for initial UMESS training of children under seven, integrated into national preschool education.

Preschool UMESS Pedagogy: A branch of pedagogy studying UMESS education for preschool children.

Professional UMESS: A subsystem of UMESS involving full-time employment for competitions, representing a form of business.

Professional UMESS Education System: A system training specialists for UMESS professions, integrated into national professional education.

Qualifying UMESS Competition: A competition identifying candidates for larger UMESS events.

Ripples on the Water: UMESS’s deep learning model, increasing game volume by 1,000x per stage (650 to 650 trillion+ games).

Secondary UMESS Education: Education enhancing mental strength or preparing for UMESS professions, offered in general or specialized institutions.

Signs of Mental Development: Qualitative and quantitative parameters of fundamental mental abilities manifested in UMESS activities.

Special UMESS Training: Focused training to develop abilities prioritized for specific UMESS types.

Strong AI (SAI): Artificial intelligence with universal cognitive capabilities, developed through UMESS’s game-based training.

Theme in UMESS Invention: A concept for a new UMESS game reflecting specific characteristics, e.g., national identity.

Third Nooformation: The envisioned civilizational stage where humans and AI co-evolve into a unified intelligence ecosystem.

Time Trouble: A shortage of time for UMESS players to make moves under time control.

Total-UMESS: The highest UMESS discipline, requiring mastery of 40–50 game varieties, with random selection of game types.

UMESS: A meta-pragmatic sphere of human activity modeling intelligence evolution, developing mental abilities through intellectual-creative games and competitions.

UMESS Academic Discipline Program: A formalized presentation of goals, content, and methods for a specific UMESS academic subject.

UMESS Academic Subject: A unit of UMESS education ensuring assimilation of knowledge and skills in a specific UMESS area.

UMESS Anamnesis: Objective and self-reported information about an UMESSman’s qualifications and mental state to optimize training.

UMESS Appeal: A protest against a controversial UMESS judging decision, submitted to a higher authority.

UMESS Apperception: The influence of theoretical UMESS training and prior experience on achievements.

UMESS Arena: A venue equipped for UMESS competitions.

UMESS Athletics: A comprehensive UMESS type combining disciplines like sensory skills, mnemonics, and parallel thinking.

UMESS Calendar: A planning tool for scheduling UMESS competitions.

UMESS-Class Game Board: A standardized board (orthogonal in the first version) for UMESS intellectual games, equipped with coordinate grids.

UMESS Classification: A system of titles and ranks for UMESSmen based on competition results.

UMESS Club: A public organization uniting UMESS enthusiasts.

UMESS Commissioner: An official recording key indicators during UMESS competitions.

UMESS Competition: A universal method for assessing mental abilities through competitive UMESS activities.

UMESS Competition Protocol: An official document summarizing a competition’s course and results.

UMESS Competition Regulations: A document defining the procedure, goals, and conditions of UMESS competitions.

UMESS Competition Rules: Norms regulating participant rights, judging, and procedures in UMESS competitions.

UMESS Composition: Non-trivial game positions with educational or aesthetic significance, used in test-training systems.

UMESS Construction: The development of new UMESS games, tests, or competition types.

UMESS Creativity: A type of UMESS focused on inventing new games, systems, or theoretical models.

UMESS Culture: A societal subsystem enhancing mental abilities through game-technical practice, or an academic discipline fostering mental development.

UMESS Culture Collective: A primary organization (club, section) of UMESS enthusiasts.

UMESS Didactics: A branch of pedagogy developing theoretical and methodological aspects of UMESS education.

UMESS Educational Activity: Purposeful activity to enhance UMESS training through theoretical knowledge and tasks.

UMESS Educational Package: Didactic materials for independent UMESS learning.

UMESS Educational Program: A formalized document defining UMESS education goals, content, and methods.

UMESS Educational Standards: Regulatory documents governing UMESS education goals, content, and methods.

UMESS Ethics: Principles and norms optimizing UMESS relationships and goals.

UMESS Exercisability: The mind’s ability to develop through dosed mental loads in UMESS training.

UMESS Exercise: A set of actions to develop specific mental abilities or maintain mental health.

UMESS Exercise Method: A teaching method using repeated mental actions to develop abilities.

UMESS Facilities: Specialized venues for UMESS training and competitions.

UMESS Federations: Non-governmental organizations promoting UMESS at various levels.

UMESS Form: The peak training state of an UMESSman for high achievements.

UMESS Furcation: Curriculum design considering students’ individual UMESS abilities.

UMESS Game: An intellectual or creative game within UMESS, characterized by abstraction and competition.

UMESS Game Pieces: Functional game primitives (e.g., King, Queen, Mage) for movement on UMESS boards.

UMESS Game Tactics: Strategies for achieving victory in UMESS competitions.

UMESS Game Technique: Mental techniques for mastering UMESS games and competing effectively.

UMESS Gymnastics: Exercises to maintain mental health and develop UMESS abilities.

UMESS Hall: A room equipped for UMESS activities.

UMESS-Inventor: A specialist developing new UMESS games, systems, or compositions.

UMESS Literature: Publications (books, periodicals) on UMESS theory and practice.

UMESS Load: The intensity and duration of mental activity during UMESS practice.

UMESS Movement: An international effort to implement the UMESS mega-project, enhancing mental abilities through game-technical practice.

UMESS Nomenclature: A collection of classifiers, norms, and rules for UMESS types.

UMESS Notation: A universal system for recording UMESS game moves and positions.

UMESS Object: The human mind or collective intelligence as the focus of UMESS activities.

UMESS Organization: A legal association integrating UMESS enthusiasts into the movement.

UMESS Passport: A document certifying UMESS-related information for activity organization.

UMESS Pavilion: A building for UMESS events.

UMESS Pedagogy: A science studying UMESS education patterns and methods.

UMESS Preparedness: The integral level of mental abilities achieved through UMESS training.

UMESS Principles: Ideological and organizational regulators determining UMESS functions.

UMESS Progress: Increased UMESS popularity and alignment with human mental development.

UMESS Project Method: A teaching method where students develop new UMESS components independently.

UMESS Qualification: The level of theoretical and practical UMESS expertise determining an UMESSman’s status.

UMESS Rank Standards and Requirements: Criteria for evaluating mental abilities in UMESS classifications.

UMESS Records: The highest achievements recorded at official UMESS competitions.

UMESS School: A community or institution with a distinctive UMESS style or training focus.

UMESS Score: A quantitative indicator of competition progress in UMESS games.

UMESS Specialization: Focused training on specific UMESS disciplines for high achievements.

UMESS Specialty: A specific UMESS profession or activity requiring defined skills.

UMESS Study (Etude): A composed game position with non-trivial properties, concluding in a specific outcome.

UMESS Task: A problematic situation requiring resolution, used for testing or training.

UMESS Teaching Methods: Techniques for facilitating UMESS knowledge and skill assimilation.

UMESS Team: A group of UMESSmen competing together in a specific UMESS type.

UMESS Tests: Standardized tasks for diagnosing mental abilities in UMESS.

UMESS Theory: Knowledge about UMESS as a model of intelligence evolution, including strategies and tactics.

UMESS Trainer: A specialist training UMESSmen in specific UMESS types.

UMESS Trainers’ Council: A body developing UMESS training policies and methodologies.

UMESS Trainedness: The mind’s ability to achieve high UMESS results through training.

UMESS Universiade: A student UMESS competition across multiple disciplines.

UMESS Warm-Up: Exercises to enhance mental tone before intensive UMESS activities.

UMESSCoin: Internal token for the UMESS social network, enabling access to tournaments and investments.

Umetop (UMESS Space): The holistic game space or constructor for UMESS games, defining their properties and interactions.

Umetopoecenosis (UMESS Topoecenosis): The unity of UMESS games (Umecenosis) and their game space, modeling intelligence evolution.

Umecenosis (UMESS Cenosis): A set of UMESS games competing within a unified game space.

Unified UMESS Classification: A universal system assigning ranks and titles based on UMESS achievements.

Unified UMESS School: An education system ensuring continuity and accessibility of UMESS training.

Universal UMESS Education: A system ensuring all students acquire standardized UMESS knowledge and skills.

Value of Game Pieces in UMESS: The comparative strength of UMESS pieces, varying by game type and situation.

Variant in UMESS Game: A series of logically related moves considered during game situation analysis.

Voluntary UMESS Society: A self-organized organization uniting UMESS enthusiasts based on a charter.

Youth UMESS School: A specialized institution for in-depth UMESS training of teenagers (13–19).

Abstract

Short Abstract

Promotional Abstract

Slogans / Taglines of UMESS

Foreword

Personal Note Before the Book

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I. The New Complex of UMESS Games

Part II. Next-Level AI Tournaments

Part III. UMESS–Bagua

Part IV. Linking UMESS with Futuris

Part V. The Investment Project

Part VI. The UMESS Social Network and International Movement

Part VII. The Mental War for the Formation and Development of Strong AI through the UMESS Complex of Intellectual Games

Part VIII. The Meta-Game “UMESS” as a Global Socio-Cultural Universum and Ultra-Franchise

Appendices

Introduction

General Concept of the Program for the Formation and Accelerated Development of Strong AI through the Meta-Game “UMESS”

Part I. A New Complex of UMESS Games

1. The Concept and Essence of UMESS 2.0

1.1. Brief History and Reasons for the Update

1.2. The Principle of «Truncation Without Loss of Potential»

1.3. The Connection Between UMESS and Intelligence Research

1.4. Rationale for the Technology of Forming and Accelerating the Development of Strong AI Through the UMESS Game Complex

2. Optimized Set of Games

2.1. General Characteristics of the New Game Complex (List and Interconnections)

64 Base Bagua-UMESS Games, Their Names, and Semantic Interpretation

2.3. Mathematical and Logical Complexity

2.4. Reasons for Choice

2.5. Games as a Bridge Between Humans and AI

3. Metrics and Methods of Evaluation

3.1. Speed of Mastery

3.2. Innovative Solutions

3.3. Transition from Tactics to Strategy

3.4. Adaptation to Rule Changes and Cognitive Multidimensionality

4. Metrics of Collective Interaction and the Psychology of Decision-Making

4.1. Metrics of Collective Interaction

4.2. Psychology of Decision-Making

4.3. Prospects for the Development of Game-Technical Umess Technologies

Part II. Tournaments of a New Level for AI

5. Concept of the Series of Series of «AI vs. AI» Matches

6. Formats and Hierarchies of Tournaments: Game-Technical Practice in UMESS as a Nootopoecenosis (Nooecosystem), Unparalleled Globally

7. Technologies for Data Capture and Analysis

8. Forecasts of AI Evolution Based on Tournament Data

9. Connection of UMESS to the Philosophy and Structure of Bagua

10. 64 UMESS-Bagua Variants and Their Multidimensional Cognitive Matrices

11. Synthesis of I-Ching, Random Game Mechanics, and Rational UMESS

Part IV. Linking UMESS with Futuris

12. UMESS as a Laboratory for Accelerated AI Evolution within Futuris

13. Using UMESS Data for the Development of Futuris Modules

Part V. Investment Project

14. General Concept of the $15 Million Investment Package

15. Harmonic Pyramid

15.1. Structure and Logic of Harmonic Growth

15.2. Connection to AI and UMESS Evolution

15.3. Visualization and Development Levels

16. The “Grains on the Board” Legend (2⁶⁴)

16.1. History and Symbolism

16.2. Mathematics of the Exponent

16.3. Application in Modeling AI Training

16.4. Connection to the Harmonic Pyramid

17. Return on Investment Forecasts and Growth Scenarios

Part VI. UMESS Social Network and International Movement

18. Concept of the UMESS Social Network

19. Model of the International UMESS Movement

19.1. Organizational Structure

19.2. Functions of the Movement

19.3. Symbolism and Ideology

19.4. Stages of Movement Development

20. Role and Engagement of Participants at Different Levels

20.1. Individual Level

20.2. Group Level

20.3. National Level

20.4. International Level

20.5. Meta-Demiurgic Level

21. Stages of Global Launch

21.1. Preparatory Stage (0–1 Year)

21.2. National Launch (1–3 Years)

21.3. International Launch (3–5 Years)