Making the (flawed) assumption that in a disagreement, they cannot both be wrong.
It's a fictional example and it's not that uncommon in fiction to have terminology that's almost, but not entirely like the equivalent in the real world. I find that kind of thing amusing, so I thought the author might have a similar sense of humour, so it could be intentional. But I admit that Occam's razor supports the theory that it's simply a mistake.
I assumed that was intentional, as the players would not know the terminology of chess if they had to deduce the rules.
Sorry, I somehow missed the "recent" in the title.
I recently read Stuart Sutherland's Irrationality, which also explains a lot of the more common biases and errors in reasoning. Decent book, but -again- probably not a lot of new ideas for less wrongers.
The incentive is weaker than you seem to suggest. Surely, I gain nothing tangible by inducing people to tiptoe carefully around my minefield.
Yes, you do. If everything unpleasant to you causes you a huge amount of suffering instead of, say, mild annoyance, other people (utilitarians) will abstain from doing things that are unpleasant to you as the negative utility to you outweighs the positive utility to them.
I don't think that's a good question. You're right that, technically, nobody knows, but my impression is that many physicists would be comfortable assigning p > 0.9 that it will.