MINER'S GAMBIT

03 · Claim Architecture

Claim Explorer

Each claim is presented in full, interpreted in plain English, decomposed into technical components and compared against the reviewed public Chess.com record. Claim 1 is additionally broken into individual elements.

Claim 1 · Independent

Competitive Game Orchestration

PARTIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Claim language

A method of operating a data communications network comprising a server in communication with a plurality of user devices, the method including: monitoring competitive gameplay conducted between two or more players; identifying an individual move or a set of moves made during the gameplay; determining, using a computer-implemented model, a number of points attributable to the move or set of moves, wherein the determination is made with reference to one or more of the game piece involved, a strategic value of the move, an allocation of a resource, and a prediction concerning a resource; causing the points to be displayed on a user device following the move; and resolving an outcome of the gameplay and any applicable reallocation of points or resources.

Plain-English interpretation

A networked game server watches a competitive game, isolates each move as an event, runs that event through a scoring model that can take account of the piece, how strong the move was, what resource is attached to it and any prediction about that resource, shows the resulting points to the player straight after the move, and then settles up at the end of the game.
Server / user-device networkGameplay monitoringMove identificationComputer-implemented scoring modelPiece / strategic value / resource / prediction inputsPost-move displayOutcome resolution and reallocation

Chess.com evidence — current

Chess.com publicly operates networked competitive play, per-move engine evaluation, move classification and display of computed move information to the player.

Source

Chess.com evidence — historical

Bitcoin-denominated competition and blockchain-based game assets (both historical).

Missing / not publicly established

The reviewed public material does not establish resource allocation, resource prediction, or reallocation of an economic resource as part of the move-scoring model.

Review note

Claim 1 is a combination claim. Correspondence at the monitoring, identification, model and display steps does not by itself address the resource-related recitations, which must be assessed element by element.

Element-by-element review

Claim 1 elements

Element AA data communications network including a server in communication with user/communication devices.

Chess.com public evidence

Chess.com operates a global client–server platform serving web and native clients.
Source

Miner's Gambit patent basis

Preamble and network limitation of Claim 1; system form appears again at Claim 19.

Assessment

Directly evidenced correspondence at the network layer.

Limitation

A generic network limitation carries little distinguishing weight on its own.
Element BMonitoring competitive gameplay involving two or more players.

Chess.com public evidence

Live play, live event relay and post-game analysis all require the platform to observe game progression.
Source

Miner's Gambit patent basis

Monitoring step of Claim 1; extended to physical capture at Claim 17.

Assessment

Directly evidenced correspondence.

Limitation

Public sources evidence the function, not Chess.com's internal monitoring implementation.
Element CIdentifying an individual move or set of moves made during gameplay.

Chess.com public evidence

Game Review analyses each move individually and identifies key moments within a game.
Source

Miner's Gambit patent basis

Move-identification step; structured event form at Claim 18.

Assessment

Directly evidenced correspondence.

Limitation

Identification is documented post-game; live per-move identification is inferred.
Element DDetermining, using a computer-implemented model, points attributable to that move.

Chess.com public evidence

The move-classification model applies an expected-points approach using engine evaluation and player rating; Accuracy returns a 0–100 score.
Source

Miner's Gambit patent basis

Core scoring step of Claim 1; strategic-value detail at Claim 7.

Assessment

Strong correspondence at the level of a computer model producing a per-move value.

Limitation

'Expected points' in the reviewed documentation are an analytical measure. Nothing in the reviewed material establishes them as economic points.
Element EThe calculation may reference the game piece, strategic value, resource allocation and resource prediction.

Chess.com public evidence

Piece and strategic value have clear analogues in engine evaluation. Resource allocation and resource prediction are not established in the reviewed public material.
Source

Miner's Gambit patent basis

Claims 2–9 develop each of the four recited inputs.

Assessment

Split element: two inputs correspond, two are not publicly established.

Limitation

This is the element on which the analysis principally turns and should be read with Claims 8 and 9.
Element FCausing points to be displayed on a user device following the move.

Chess.com public evidence

Move classifications, evaluation graph movement and accuracy are surfaced to the player.
Source

Miner's Gambit patent basis

Display step of Claim 1.

Assessment

Directly evidenced correspondence for analytical values.

Limitation

Reviewed documentation describes display in post-game review; in-play economic display is not established.
Element GResolving the game outcome and any applicable redistribution.

Chess.com public evidence

Game results, ratings and tournament standings resolve automatically; prize settlement occurs at the event layer.
Source

Miner's Gambit patent basis

Resolution step; automated settlement at Claim 16.

Assessment

Partial correspondence — resolution yes, resource redistribution not established.

Limitation

Reported Bitcoin prize payouts were event-level and are not described as programmatic settlement.