[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by MatsWinther
Oblong chess. Variant of Shatranj, played on a four by sixteen sized board. (4x16, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Chaturanga for four players.. Oldest multiplayer chess variant. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]If you downloaded my 4-handed Chaturanga then you should download it again because I have fixed a bug where one can never throw a double-three.
4-handed Chaturanga with dice
. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hi Christine!
I don't understand why the engine behaves as it does. Why does it sometimes refrain from capturing an enemy king? So I don't understand how I should improve it. I simply can't understand it. If you can find out a way of improving it it would be good. And sometimes it happens that it captures its partner's pieces, but this treachery is like real life, so it's ok. This game is fun for kids, I suppose, and ideal when playing for money. Much better than poker.
I don't understand why the engine behaves as it does. Why does it sometimes refrain from capturing an enemy king? So I don't understand how I should improve it. I simply can't understand it. If you can find out a way of improving it it would be good. And sometimes it happens that it captures its partner's pieces, but this treachery is like real life, so it's ok. This game is fun for kids, I suppose, and ideal when playing for money. Much better than poker.
Sittuyin (Burmese Chess). Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Today I have uploaded a version which honours the rule that the rooks must be dropped on the first rank, which is reserved for the rooks. But I am unsure about the promotion rule. According to Bodlaender pawns promote only when leaving the marked square, but according to Nicolaus the pawns can promote upon reaching the square. I am also uncertain whether the pawn must promote if he can. Can a pawn leave a marked square without promoting, although he is allowed to? This is how I have implemented it. I find Bodlaender's rule logical, provided that one is not forced to promote. I see no reason to promote immediately as it's better to leave the possibilities open. But I could need some input on this. Burmese Chess.
Christine, thanx for the bug reported and the appreciation. 4-handed Chaturanga is clearly designed for dice. It simply doesn't work without dice. For instance, yellow can immediately attack black's king by Boat to c3, and the black king is forced to move out, and in the next move yellow can again attack the king by a pawn move. This game was almost exclusively played with dice. Later, during medieval times, they developed 4-handed Shatranj, which is quite different. This was played mostly without dice (but still about money). This game functions quite well without dice. I strongly suspect that it is this game that is reported as having been played well into the 19th century, and not 4-handed Chaturanga (what an author argues on this site).
Christine, well, it is a little complicated. I just feel the play is a little 'vulgar,' with these immediate king hunts. With dice it's much better.
A game which is anything but vulgar is Burmese Chess. It is a mature form of chess, less tactical than Fide chess, still quite lively. Today, I have uploaded the final version (hopefully). There are two variants of promotion rules to choose from. The game is now tweaked to play better. It actually plays quite well.
A game which is anything but vulgar is Burmese Chess. It is a mature form of chess, less tactical than Fide chess, still quite lively. Today, I have uploaded the final version (hopefully). There are two variants of promotion rules to choose from. The game is now tweaked to play better. It actually plays quite well.
Chaturanga for four players.. Oldest multiplayer chess variant. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Regrettably, there were some bugs, but today I uploaded the final(?) version of 4-handed Shatranj.
Sittuyin (Burmese Chess). Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have now added the rules that, when leaving the square, a pawn is not allowed to promote if that implies capturing an enemy King or General. Also added two variants where promotion is allowed upon entering a marked square.Burmese Chess.
Chaturanga for four players.. Oldest multiplayer chess variant. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]4-handed Chaturanga with dice (weird game, not to be confused with 4-handed Shatranj). I fixed a serious bug concerning promotion. Playing strength is improved.
Swedish
Chess - a drop-chess variant with regular pieces. Solves the problem of opening monotony in modern chess.
The players take turns to drop pieces. Only when dropping on one's own pawn, one must immediately relocate the pawn to an empty square. Then it's the next player's turn.
I have updated Swedish Chess (zrf) so that it relocates the pawns to better positions. Swedish Chess should appeal to Fide-chess fanatics who have grown tired of studying openings, but who aren't particularly fond of the alternative FischeRandom.
The Circular Chess Society. Organization for players of Circular Chess.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Burmese Elephant is an interesting piece deriving from Burmese Chess. It can move one step diagonally in any direction, or one step straight ahead. It has about the same value as a knight. Although it is a slow piece it also has a big advantage: together with a king it can give mate to a lonely king. Neither the bishop or knight can achieve this. Applied to regular chess, this has great impact in endings with pawns and light pieces. When the opponent has an elephant left, the drawing motif of sacrificing a light piece for the remaning pawn no longer holds water. Unlike the bishop the Burmese Elephant can reach all squares of the board. I tried substituting this piece for the bishops in regular chess. The result seems to be quite functional. It's a less technical form of chess: Elephant Chess.
For the Zillions programmers out there I'd like to point out the method whereby I stimulate the engine to castle. I have simply added links from the king's squares and around them. This makes the king feel uncomfortable on those squares and he castles to get away. It works remarkably well. In many chess variants castling is imperative to connect the rooks and to survive the middlegame. Note also how I've managed to increase the value of the Elephant compared with the knight (otherwise the engine underestimates the Elephant). This is simply by adding move function calls to dummy squares beside the board, occupied by dummy pieces. These are important tricks for Zillions chess variant programmers. Take a look in the zrf.
Mats
For the Zillions programmers out there I'd like to point out the method whereby I stimulate the engine to castle. I have simply added links from the king's squares and around them. This makes the king feel uncomfortable on those squares and he castles to get away. It works remarkably well. In many chess variants castling is imperative to connect the rooks and to survive the middlegame. Note also how I've managed to increase the value of the Elephant compared with the knight (otherwise the engine underestimates the Elephant). This is simply by adding move function calls to dummy squares beside the board, occupied by dummy pieces. These are important tricks for Zillions chess variant programmers. Take a look in the zrf.
Mats
Correction: the Burmese Elephant cannot always mate a lonely king. But, together with a king, or some other piece, it is very suitable for giving mate in the endgame.
David, thanks for the info. I have corrected my homepage. I had missed the 'White Elephant' implementation. It's an interesting concept with different armies, i.e., the Burmese Elephants pitted against the bishop pair, etc. Luckily, my 'Elephant Chess' differs very much from Peter's inventions. Nor did I know that this piece is the same as the 'Silver General' in Shogi. It is an interesting piece. Its qualities are much different from the orthodox chess pieces. Aronson discusses the strength of the Burmese Elephant and compares it with the Fil (the other kind of Elephant) in Shatranj. This is a surprisingly weak piece, about equal to a centre pawn. To me it's obvious that the Burmese Elephant is much stronger since it can reach all squares of the board, while the Fil can only reach a quarter of them. The Fil is an awkward piece. I cannot understand how they could bear with it for more than a millenium. But I suspect that they originally played with dice. Then the piece makes much more sense.
I believe the Mammoth is a new piece. It jumps two steps diagonally or orthogonally, or steps one square in any direction. (It is close to Murray's Lion.) The Mammoth and the Rook have equal value, although the Mammoth is stronger in cramped positions, and the Rook is stronger in the endgame. It complements the jump move of the Knight. A Mammoth, together with a King, can give mate to a lonely King.
The Mammoth piece is copyrighted and may not be used by anybody else. Offenders will be subject to legal measures. Kalroten Game Development Inc. ;-)
Mammoth Chess (zrf) is an attempt to create a new form of big-board chess, featuring the Mammoth piece. I haven't investigated it deeply, but it seems to work.
Earlier big board variants are Tamerlane Chess, allegedly invented byTimur Lenk, C. Freeling's Grand Chess, and Capablanca's chess, invented by the former world champion. Mammoth Chess, differs significantly from these previous variants, not only in the pieces employed. The initial drop move, deriving from Burmese Chess, allows great strategical freedom. The king can achieve a more protected position than in Grand Chess, while the pawns can be relocated to protect the king. This significantly alters the balance between strategy and tactics. Opening play does not rely on concrete variants but rather on principles and favoured piece setups. Consequently the game will never be bogged down by opening theory, as the case is in today's orthodox chess. This could be good, if the Mammoth proves to function in this context of pieces.
Earlier big board variants are Tamerlane Chess, allegedly invented by
Gary, wake up!! That copyright stuff was a joke!
Of course, one cannot copyright a piece. It's hardly any difference between this one and several other pieces. Nor can one copyright a chess variant, as they all build on similar principles, only combined in different ways.
Mats
Of course, one cannot copyright a piece. It's hardly any difference between this one and several other pieces. Nor can one copyright a chess variant, as they all build on similar principles, only combined in different ways.
Mats
Hi Joe! This was exactly what I expected, that more cunning persons would inform me whether the piece is unique or not. Anyway, 'Mammoth' is a good name and I think I'll keep it. I have already updated my homepage with the information you relate. (Is this piece in the Piece-encyclopedia?) I think highly of this piece. I *suspect* it is worth the same as a rook, but I'm not certain. It covers at most 16 squares. The rook covers at most 18 squares on the 10x10 board, but the Mammoth can be more active. The Zillions engine regards the Mammoth as more valuable than the rook, so I had to tweak the engine to accept it as equal to the rook. The games that I've played with the computer seems to validate this. But on an 8x8 board I suspect it's worth more than a rook. On the 10x10 board the long-ranged rook increases its value, I'd guess.
Michael, you don't need to bother about such copyrights. Nobody has the right to copyright the properties of chess that have existed for thousands of years. If I design a TV, with an inbuilt digital camera, and cellular phone, then I can't copyright that, simply because of insufficient uniqueness. It's just a juxtaposition of already invented items. When it comes to chess, it has such a strong public domain status, like all ancient games, so in this case it's even more obvious that it can't be copyrighted. Anybody can exploit my Mammoth Chess anyway they want. (I uploaded a bugfixed version today). If it becomes popular then they might want to fabricate Mammuth piece sets and sell. I gladly accept that.
Mark, copyright issues involve games, too. Take a look at the copyright babble at the Rubik's cube site.
When it comes to patents, have a look here. Copyrights are international under the Bern Convention, but patents are strictly national in force. Despite attempts, the terms of international treaties have never been successfully negotiated. For instance, this means that a working software program (other than one copyrighted by the inventor) which plays a particular board game carrying a current US Patent can be developed, freely distributed and used by people in all of the other 200 or so nations of the world legally and without restriction. Just don't violate any applicable copyright (or trademark) which may also exist. This may mean that the original name of the game cannot be safely used.
So patents are no problem when it comes to games, if the game is patented abroad. The only problem is the trademark. But the only thing one needs to do is to rename the game. When it comes to chess variants one needn't bother. I think it's ridiculous to claim copyright for the rules of a chess variant. The copyright is valid, of course, for anything that one writes about the variant, i.e., an article about it, piece images, etc. But one cannot claim copyright for the rules. How would it be if philosophers claimed copyright for their philosophical ideas, saying that nobody else has the right to think in this particular way?
Mats
When it comes to patents, have a look here. Copyrights are international under the Bern Convention, but patents are strictly national in force. Despite attempts, the terms of international treaties have never been successfully negotiated. For instance, this means that a working software program (other than one copyrighted by the inventor) which plays a particular board game carrying a current US Patent can be developed, freely distributed and used by people in all of the other 200 or so nations of the world legally and without restriction. Just don't violate any applicable copyright (or trademark) which may also exist. This may mean that the original name of the game cannot be safely used.
So patents are no problem when it comes to games, if the game is patented abroad. The only problem is the trademark. But the only thing one needs to do is to rename the game. When it comes to chess variants one needn't bother. I think it's ridiculous to claim copyright for the rules of a chess variant. The copyright is valid, of course, for anything that one writes about the variant, i.e., an article about it, piece images, etc. But one cannot claim copyright for the rules. How would it be if philosophers claimed copyright for their philosophical ideas, saying that nobody else has the right to think in this particular way?
Mats
Negligent of me, but this game wasn't listed among the big-board variants, so I had no knowledge about it when I named my game Mammoth Chess. But since the inventor has withdrawn his creation I think I can appropriate the name.
The question is how people experience the dropping phase. Is it tedious due to the large board? Would players prefer a standard setup? I think I will experiment with a standard setup because the Mammoth is well suited for this environment of board size and piece types. I am sceptical of the extra pieces in Grand Chess, that combine long range pieces with short range knight moves. By the way, the Mammoth (Squire) deserves a place in the Piecencyclopedia.
Mats
The question is how people experience the dropping phase. Is it tedious due to the large board? Would players prefer a standard setup? I think I will experiment with a standard setup because the Mammoth is well suited for this environment of board size and piece types. I am sceptical of the extra pieces in Grand Chess, that combine long range pieces with short range knight moves. By the way, the Mammoth (Squire) deserves a place in the Piecencyclopedia.
Mats
It's true that this is a fine opportunity to be creative, to give away for free, and feel altruistic. I have implemented a new big-board chess, Mastodon Chess, featuring the Mammoth (but here it is called Mastodon to add to the confusion. I found one reference to 'Mastodon' on the Chess Variant pages, referring to a quite odd piece, not very useful. It is not a listed piece so I employ the name Mastodon, too). Anyway, I really believe in this Mammoth piece. I think its future is bright.
Castling in Chess 960. New castling rules for Fischer Random Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Fischer Random is a lost cause anyway. It's quite good for training games, but it won't supersede regular chess. Chess players aren't fond of it. I actually asked Seirawan once, and he rejected it. Chess players want to be in control, but in FR they are always faced with unknown territory. In some of the initial positions white cannot secure an advantage. And in certain cases black's position is not tenable. To be able to study a standard opening position is a necessary prerequisite for chessplayers. It contributes to the vitality and depth of a game if it can be studied in advance. It's more fun to play also, because you can adopt your favourite attacks and defenses. In this way Fischer Random goes against the instincts of chessplayers.
But clearly, Fide chess is approaching a crisis. It could soon be renamed 'Opening Study Chess'. It's becoming ridiculous. I think there are two ways of meeting this challenge. (1) Follow Capablanca's proposal and increase the board size, or (2) introduce a form of drop-chess along Burmesian lines, as my own proposal Swedish Chess. It looks promising, but I don't don't know whether it speaks to the instincts of chess players. Nor do I know if it's complex enough, i.e., so that a multitude of deep strategies are possible.
Chess commentators have been ridiculing Capablanca for his big board proposal, and even argued that it was an expression of megalomania. But Capa was right. It's only that his proposal came too early, prior to 20th century's immense development in opening play. But now chess is approaching a crisis again. The big board alternative is underestimated because people think that its complexity is beyond human capability. I think this is a misunderstanding. This form of complexity is something which a human brain is very apt to handle. In regular chess a 'simple' rook ending could be immensely complicated, putting great demands on both understanding and calculus, whereas a complex middle game position could be much more easy to handle. This is a paradox in chess. In complicated positions with many pieces the vast majority of continuations are simply impracticable. A rook ending contain much fewer possibilities, but a much greater percentage of practicable continuations. In middle games there are many uncritical positions, which means that there are many playable alternatives. You could almost choose a move by random. This paradox, that it is often easier to play complex positions, makes the big board alternatives wholly playable, at least some of them. To many orthodox chessplayers such a game as Renniassance Chess, for instance, is unthinkable. It must be a joke. Nobody can control the complexity of this game. But thanks to this paradox of complex positions certain big board variants are probably quite manageable.
I don't think it's worth it to waste more time and energy on Fischer Random, as such. A better alternative is simply to pick good and interesting positions from the array of positions in FR and adopt them as new additional opening setups, like I did in my own proposal Chess-B. To chessplayers, this is much more fun , because then one can study and discuss this particular FR position.
Mats
But clearly, Fide chess is approaching a crisis. It could soon be renamed 'Opening Study Chess'. It's becoming ridiculous. I think there are two ways of meeting this challenge. (1) Follow Capablanca's proposal and increase the board size, or (2) introduce a form of drop-chess along Burmesian lines, as my own proposal Swedish Chess. It looks promising, but I don't don't know whether it speaks to the instincts of chess players. Nor do I know if it's complex enough, i.e., so that a multitude of deep strategies are possible.
Chess commentators have been ridiculing Capablanca for his big board proposal, and even argued that it was an expression of megalomania. But Capa was right. It's only that his proposal came too early, prior to 20th century's immense development in opening play. But now chess is approaching a crisis again. The big board alternative is underestimated because people think that its complexity is beyond human capability. I think this is a misunderstanding. This form of complexity is something which a human brain is very apt to handle. In regular chess a 'simple' rook ending could be immensely complicated, putting great demands on both understanding and calculus, whereas a complex middle game position could be much more easy to handle. This is a paradox in chess. In complicated positions with many pieces the vast majority of continuations are simply impracticable. A rook ending contain much fewer possibilities, but a much greater percentage of practicable continuations. In middle games there are many uncritical positions, which means that there are many playable alternatives. You could almost choose a move by random. This paradox, that it is often easier to play complex positions, makes the big board alternatives wholly playable, at least some of them. To many orthodox chessplayers such a game as Renniassance Chess, for instance, is unthinkable. It must be a joke. Nobody can control the complexity of this game. But thanks to this paradox of complex positions certain big board variants are probably quite manageable.
I don't think it's worth it to waste more time and energy on Fischer Random, as such. A better alternative is simply to pick good and interesting positions from the array of positions in FR and adopt them as new additional opening setups, like I did in my own proposal Chess-B. To chessplayers, this is much more fun , because then one can study and discuss this particular FR position.
Mats
Adrian, to unleash their creativity amateurs cannot go on studying openings using a chess database, because then creativity and fun is thwarted. I knew an ambitious amateur (around Elo 2170) who devoted years and years to perfecting his opening repertoire. But, unlike grandmasters, he lacked the capacity to creatively improve the variants, and, by this monotonous activity, he managed to deaden his natural passion for the game. And then it became obvious that he couldn't play those variants because his opponents would prepare against his variations using their own databases. An ambitious amateur cannot afford keeping alternative opening systems, it's too much work involved. On the other hand, amateurs can seldom play small openings systems like Réti, because they lack the capacity to make the most of those small positional advantages that can be utilized in the endgame.
In his upcoming series Kasparov will discuss the 'opening revolution', which had its beginnings in the seventies. For the ambitious amateur, the present development in chess, the advanced level of opening science, is injurious to creativity and phantasy. In Rubinstein's and Lasker's time grandmasters could still play the exchange variation in the French with a good deal of success. But what's the point in feeding 25 moves in the Sicilian Dragon, against another ambitious amateur, and then shake hands since a theoretical drawn position is reached? I see amateurs do this. In orthodox chess you are cooped up in opening lines which you don't really like. You are forced to play against your own nature because there are no good strategical alternatives. Everything else is drawish. This is due to the advancement of opening science. I don't think Fide-chess should vanish, it's just that it's high time that we think about alternatives.
That's why I think that such initiatives like the Circular Chess World Championship are praiseworthy, because it speaks to our phantasy and creativity.
Mats
In his upcoming series Kasparov will discuss the 'opening revolution', which had its beginnings in the seventies. For the ambitious amateur, the present development in chess, the advanced level of opening science, is injurious to creativity and phantasy. In Rubinstein's and Lasker's time grandmasters could still play the exchange variation in the French with a good deal of success. But what's the point in feeding 25 moves in the Sicilian Dragon, against another ambitious amateur, and then shake hands since a theoretical drawn position is reached? I see amateurs do this. In orthodox chess you are cooped up in opening lines which you don't really like. You are forced to play against your own nature because there are no good strategical alternatives. Everything else is drawish. This is due to the advancement of opening science. I don't think Fide-chess should vanish, it's just that it's high time that we think about alternatives.
That's why I think that such initiatives like the Circular Chess World Championship are praiseworthy, because it speaks to our phantasy and creativity.
Mats
Michael, those grandmasters get paid for playing FRC. Those who aren't, the bulk of chessplayers, 99.9%, are not particularly interested in FRC. What matters is what amateurs think. But I would gladly play FRC, too, if I got paid.
Gary, of course, grandmasters play other games, not the least backgammon. But this is not the issue. The question is whether we can find a powerful enough candidate to supersede chess. We sure don't wish it to be backgammon.
Another candidate with a potential for superseding Fide-chess is the type of CV:s that employ undefined or potential pieces, such as Bario, and my own variant Barion. I have improved the rules for Barion greatly and uploaded a new version today.
Potential pieces, or 'Quantums', or whatever you prefer to call them, is an area that could be researched more.
Mats
Another candidate with a potential for superseding Fide-chess is the type of CV:s that employ undefined or potential pieces, such as Bario, and my own variant Barion. I have improved the rules for Barion greatly and uploaded a new version today.
Potential pieces, or 'Quantums', or whatever you prefer to call them, is an area that could be researched more.
Mats
I already uploaded a new bugfixed version of my Barion. It plays curiously, but it's worthwhile to study the concept of potential pieces.
Gary, If this had been correct that chessplayers are enjoying all kinds of chess variants then everything would be ok. Truth is that hardly anybody knows what Omega Chess is. And this is what we are trying to remedy here by discussing which type of chess variant could appeal to the average player. Fide-chess is approaching a crisis. The game is becoming too well-researched. In my country 50% of the players have been lost in 20 years, for a number of reasons. And they don't turn to Makruk or Omega Chess.
I have tested Omega Chess. As usual the board graphics is bad, so I created a new grapics which can be downloaded here (zipped).
So how about Omega Chess? My first reaction is that it's somewhat slow. (But perhaps that good?) Secondly, there are four light piece-types (bishop, knight, champion, wizard) that have the same value and are worth less than the rook. How does this affect play? Won't the game be centered around these pieces, that is, won't the majority of the moves be made by those pieces?
Playing against the zrf I see that the engine hops around with these pieces, avoiding moving the pawns. Is there any idea to expand one's territory by advancing the pawns, or could one just as well go on hopping with the light pieces? Does anyone have any experience of this game? I don't trust grandmaster opinions, because they think that backgammon is a good game, despite the fact that it's immensely boring.
So how about Omega Chess? My first reaction is that it's somewhat slow. (But perhaps that good?) Secondly, there are four light piece-types (bishop, knight, champion, wizard) that have the same value and are worth less than the rook. How does this affect play? Won't the game be centered around these pieces, that is, won't the majority of the moves be made by those pieces?
Playing against the zrf I see that the engine hops around with these pieces, avoiding moving the pawns. Is there any idea to expand one's territory by advancing the pawns, or could one just as well go on hopping with the light pieces? Does anyone have any experience of this game? I don't trust grandmaster opinions, because they think that backgammon is a good game, despite the fact that it's immensely boring.
Michael, I don't write off grandmaster's view for so little, but I tried to make a point. A technically proficient person will take a liking to games where this technical skill comes to expression. Have a look at the Omega Chess site where there are some Javascripts of Omega chess games. As I predicted, this game is quite technical. There is a lot of hopping around with the light pieces. This suits the grandmasters very well. But how fun is it for amateurs that will notoriously commit blunders within 20 moves? It is a fun and interesting chess variant, but I don't believe it's 'The Next Evolution in Chess' as they claim.
Evidently, a grandmaster will like the game because he can master the complicated tactics. But an amateur would like to be able to survive the middlegame. I contend that the next evolution in chess must be a variant with a better balance between strategy and tactics.
I think this discussion could bring us somewhere as long as we tolerate each other's views.
Evidently, a grandmaster will like the game because he can master the complicated tactics. But an amateur would like to be able to survive the middlegame. I contend that the next evolution in chess must be a variant with a better balance between strategy and tactics.
I think this discussion could bring us somewhere as long as we tolerate each other's views.
Gary, thanks for helping me make my point. You mention the Grand Prix attack and Morra gambit. But these are completely dead openings on grandmaster level. Even on an average tournament level you can hardly play them anymore, because the average amateur knows the remedy. It is very frustrating for the white player. More and more openings become dead like this.
Gary, the Berlin defense has never been declared dead. The only problem is that it's designed to achieve a draw, which was what Kramnik achieved. But black-players often want to play for a win. That's why Berlin was almost forgotten. If it's true that Berlin is such a good defense, then this is a fine example of how far chess science has advanced. An average player can study the Berlin defense and become practically invincible. Certainly, this is not good for chess.
Facts are that many chess commentators became worried during the Kramnik-Kasparov match. With the Berlin defense, they saw a return to drawish chess, and to openings that were certain draws, especially with the aid of modern databases. I haven't declared chess dead. I'm just saying that it's approaching a crisis.
Facts are that many chess commentators became worried during the Kramnik-Kasparov match. With the Berlin defense, they saw a return to drawish chess, and to openings that were certain draws, especially with the aid of modern databases. I haven't declared chess dead. I'm just saying that it's approaching a crisis.
Gary, you are a nitpicker of indistinctness in expressions, and I cannot relate to your irritation. No, on amateur level we would not see a lot of Berlin defense played because it tends to result in draws. Strong players want to be able to win against weaker players, so they play the Sicilian. How could a practically invincible Berlin defense be so damaging on grandmaster level? It's because 50% of the games are opened with 1.e4. It is the best move. Earlier, when theory was not so well developed, we had no way of knowing this. You are curious about my style? Some of my own games are published in ChessBase's collections.
As an ambitious CV developer I would like to hear some judgements on big-board variants, i.e. which ones you prefer and why. For instance, how about Omega Chess? (If you want a better graphics, you can download it here (zipped)).
And how about Grand Chess, which is rather popular? (There is also a zrf of this CV, as a variant in 'Fairy Chess'on the Zillions CD).
The reason why I implemented my own big-board chess, Mastodon Chess (updated yesterday), was that I wanted a variant where tactics was toned town. I fear that one tends to develop variants that suit one's own preferences too much.
Castling in Chess 960. New castling rules for Fischer Random Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]What I say about my 'Swedish Chess' is this (2006-04-19) 'It looks promising, but I don't know whether it speaks to the instincts of chess players. Nor do I know if it's complex enough, i.e., so that a multitude of deep strategies are possible.'
So I don't claim it's the 'Perfect chess variant'. That was a slogan I invented beside the link to the article about it. Everybody knows what a commercial slogan is and people don't take them seriously. And I do certainly have the right to claim that Backgammon is boring.
I think the last comments are a depressing sight. They are evidence of a lack of intelligence. When I make a joke and say that nobody has the right to use my newly invented piece, and that legal measures will be taken, and put the smiley beside ;-) then I get scolded for that, too.
Why don't you guys try to understand what people are saying before starting to scold them. Soon everybody is going to be pissed in this place.
(I used the name Z-pente because I was worried that the name Pente was a trademark, that's all. I immediately make clear on my homepage that 'this is the same as Pente'. But please forget about my non-chess variants. But thanks anyway for your comments on my games.)
So I don't claim it's the 'Perfect chess variant'. That was a slogan I invented beside the link to the article about it. Everybody knows what a commercial slogan is and people don't take them seriously. And I do certainly have the right to claim that Backgammon is boring.
I think the last comments are a depressing sight. They are evidence of a lack of intelligence. When I make a joke and say that nobody has the right to use my newly invented piece, and that legal measures will be taken, and put the smiley beside ;-) then I get scolded for that, too.
Why don't you guys try to understand what people are saying before starting to scold them. Soon everybody is going to be pissed in this place.
(I used the name Z-pente because I was worried that the name Pente was a trademark, that's all. I immediately make clear on my homepage that 'this is the same as Pente'. But please forget about my non-chess variants. But thanks anyway for your comments on my games.)
Michael, obviously you don't understand how impertinent you are, thinking that you are the right person to stand in judgement about me and my conduct. You make a lot of insinuations about me and my contributions, and you say, 'Be careful how you say things, and be careful that you have evidence for your statements.' How can you make such statements? Who do you think you are? Nor can I understand how you can build a judgement of so many of my games in so short time. It appears superhuman. It would probably take a months time to arrive at a good judgement on Mastodon Chess.
Andreas, thanks for this information. What surprises me is that there exist no zrf of these two variants although they are easy to implement. Mats
Derek, thanks for those links, I will try it out. But meanwhile I had already created a zrf for 'Teutonic Chess' and 'Embassy Chess'. If you want to try Gothic Chess you only need to change positions between Chancellor and Archbishop in the initial position of Teutonic Chess (right-click). It can be downloaded
here. (zipped). Maybe those pieces invented by Capa are usable, after all.
Mats
Mats
I realized today that Mr Duniho implemented Embassy Chess already (Jan 2006), and other large board variants in LargeChess. But in his Embassy Chess there is a bug where the king only jumps two steps when castling on the queen's wing (should be three steps). I've reported it to him.
(However, my implementation has an advantage, namely that the engine more readily castles, thanks to tweaking, but I will not publish this zrf on this site because it is redundant.)
(However, my implementation has an advantage, namely that the engine more readily castles, thanks to tweaking, but I will not publish this zrf on this site because it is redundant.)
Can't get SMIRF to work because there is a dll missing.
Anyway, it's possible to get Zillions to play well too, if one applies some tweaking so that it moves the centre pawns in the opening instead of hopping about with the light pieces, and also, to persuade it to castle. I've made those tweakings today in the 8x10 variants, downloadable here. Maybe I'll publish this after all, because it plays somewhat better than earlier publications.
I am thinking of implementing Hans Åberg's Capablanca variant, too, because it implies an improvement of the castle rules.
Anyway, it's possible to get Zillions to play well too, if one applies some tweaking so that it moves the centre pawns in the opening instead of hopping about with the light pieces, and also, to persuade it to castle. I've made those tweakings today in the 8x10 variants, downloadable here. Maybe I'll publish this after all, because it plays somewhat better than earlier publications.
I am thinking of implementing Hans Åberg's Capablanca variant, too, because it implies an improvement of the castle rules.
I've continued experimenting with the Mastodont (Mammoth, Squire). I am fond of this piece because it is so natural (there exist many 'madcap' chess pieces that are fun but not quite natural). It is a natural extension of the regular pieces as it complements the knight's moves, while its added capability of the king's moves makes it capable, like the knight, of reaching all the squares of the board (unlike the other complement of the knight, namely the Alibaba. What's more, at least on the 10x10 board it seems like an exact counterpart of the rook in strength. This is very good as it allows for the positional stratagem of exchanging pieces (and not only to tactically conquer them.) Moreover, a Mastodon, together with a King, can give mate to a lonely King. It has the minimum strength for this quite important capability.
I found a piece setup on the 8x10 board that seems to function well with the Mastodon piece: Mastodon Chess (8x10) (zrf).
(By the way, I wonder how people evaluate the strenght of pieces. I see that they value them as '8.9', etc.)
Mats
I found a piece setup on the 8x10 board that seems to function well with the Mastodon piece: Mastodon Chess (8x10) (zrf).
(By the way, I wonder how people evaluate the strenght of pieces. I see that they value them as '8.9', etc.)
Mats
>This is currently the strongest program available that is free and
>fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants.
You must be pulling my leg. SMIRF immediately loses piece always, and I cannot set playing time to higher values.
>fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants.
You must be pulling my leg. SMIRF immediately loses piece always, and I cannot set playing time to higher values.
Adrian, probably the right place to post your question is
http://zillionsofgames.com/discus/
Total Chess 
. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I can't test this because it's hard to discern what piece it is. Please improve the graphics, making the board and pieces bigger.
Andreas, thanks for the example that shows that the Mastodon is a very dangerous piece. I've come up with yet another variant featuring the Mastodon (Mammoth), namely
Mammoth Chess (8x10) (zrf). I think this drop-chess theme with pawn relocation is very promising. It could be used in more games. I also tried it with Capablanca's notions of pieces and board size, and christened it Scandinavian Chess (zrf).
Mats
Mats
Chess Problems of 1001 years ago. Mansubat: Chess Problems of 1001 years ago.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Shashi, of course, everybody is aware that the first game of chess was played in India. Murray says that Chaturanga is at least older than Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) because, after Alexander's invasion, the Chariot was henceforth removed as a branch of the fighting services, due to its lack of efficiency against Alexander. This would have been reflected in Chaturanga had it been younger. But Chaturanga does not refer to four army corps, but to the four branches of the fighting services (not counting king and fers). So 4-handed Chaturanga is not the original as some would have it, says Murray (I've earlier implemented this curious game with dice, here (zrf).
Can you substantiate the claim that Chaturanga is at least from 3172 BC?
Mats
Can you substantiate the claim that Chaturanga is at least from 3172 BC?
Mats
Michael, please give a concise account of 'Betza's Atomic Theory'. I've read Scharnagl's papers on piece value, and one can immediately see in this attempt, and others, that the result is not wholly correct. Had the bishop's value exceeded the knight's value to this extent, then exchanging a bishop against a knight would lead to minor advantage. But practice has shown that bishops and knights have equal value. However, as the player can sometimes steer the game into positions where the bishop is stronger, it is often a good strategy to defer exchange. If the Mammoth (Mastodon) is very strong due to its manœuvrability then a paradox ensues. It cannot manœuvre because it's so valuable and must fall back before the lighter pieces. This means that it's not so strong after all. Unlike a Rook it cannot threathen at a distance. It must go forward to make threaths, and this means that it exposes itself to threaths. Moreover, the Mammoth is not only vulnerable at a short distance, it's also easily exposed to threaths from long distance, by all other pieces except the king. That is, other pieces can easily threathen the Mammoth without being threathened themselves. It seems like the 'vulnerability factor' is high with the Mammoth (is 'vulnerability' included when determining piece value mathematically?). It is also a slow piece. It takes four moves to move it across a big board. I don't believe it compares to a Cardinal (Archbishop, B+N) in strength. The latter is faster and much less vulnerable. Intuitively, I would say that the Mammoth compares to the value of a Rook. Mats
Reinhard, the Mammoth *jumps* two squares. This significantly increases its strength and makes it such an interesting and valuable piece on the big board. The problem of knight and bishop also has to do with the fact that their values are so flexible. A centrally positioned knight in the middlegame, on a square which cannot be threathened by a pawn, acquires the value of a rook. In the endgame, when pawns are located only at one wing, the knight is often more valuable than the bishop, sometimes winning the game, despite equal material. However, the cooperation of two bishops can increase the value of a bishop considerably. The derivation of piece value seems to be a complicated science. If we use Taylor's notion that the value of a chess piece is proportional to its ability to safely check an enemy king on another otherwise vacant board, then the Mammoth is less valuable than a rook, since the rook can give check from many more squares. It seems that this piece has great strengths and great weaknesses. Mats
Are you sure that you got this right? The Mammoth (Mastodon) *jumps* one or two steps diagonally or orthogonally. It cannot be as valuable as 6.8. Those evaluation systems don't work because they don't take into account how pieces *relate* to each other. Nor does the simple counting of squares work, i.e., its factual power, because it doesn't take into account that the Mammoth has to flee to every threat and cannot strike back. For instance, if a rook is threatened by a queen it can strike back on the orthogonals. The Archbishop can strike back against a threatening bishop, queen, or knight, but a Mammoth must generally back off before any threat. I argue that the Archbishop must be clearly more valuable than the Mammoth. The Mammoth seems ideal for testing the reliability of evaluation systems.
I have investigated the theoretical endgame properties of the Mammoth and it proved to be significantly stronger than the Rook in this area. (1) M + K vs. Q + K = draw (2) M + K vs. R + K = draw (3) M + K vs. B + K = win (4) M + K vs. N + K = win Comparatively, a Rook + King cannot win against neither Bishop nor Knight, in the general case. This implies that the Mammoth is stronger in theoretical endgames. Moreover, Rook + King generally loses against Queen + King, but the Mammoth draws against Queen. Also, in a theoretical endgame, a Mammoth is well suited for escorting a passed pawn to the promotion square. Bishop, Knight, or Rook, cannot achieve this. So it is stronger than a Rook. I contend that it compares to Rook + Pawn, i.e. 6. But I refuse to believe that it's as strong as an Archbishop (6.8).
It's not only a matter of technique to study theoretical endgames. Although considerations
of theoretical endgames are of tactical nature they are important also from a strategical
perspective because the capabilities of the pieces create certain motives that are quite
important, and sometimes surface already in opening and middlegame. An obvious example
is the sacrifice of the light piece on the opponent's remaining pawn(s). Although the
opponent has a Bishop or Knight against a lonely King, this is not enough for win. Such
factors affect the whole game, from the beginning. The fact that the Rook cannot win
against light piece in the ending, is underlying the common motif of the positional sacrifice
of a Rook against Knight or Bishop in the middlegame. Tigran Petrosian
often used this idea. These sacrifices bring no tactical advantage, but are strictly
positional.
(I have now improved the opening play in my Mastodon Chess (8x10))
(I have now improved the opening play in my Mastodon Chess (8x10))
I made a test where I put an Archbishop + King versus Mammoth + King on an otherwise empty board in Zillions. On an 8x8 board Zillions evaluates Archbishop and Mammoth as equal. But on an 8x10 board Zillions evaluates the Archbishop as significantly stronger than the Mammoth (so that the smiley looks unhappy when making the Mammoth move). On a 10x10 board the difference increases yet more in the Archbishop's favour, but not that much. So Zillions thinks that the Mammoth has about the value of an Archbishop on an *empty* 8x8 board, but this evaluation changes when the board is bigger. This corroborates what has been said recently, although I'm unable to interpret Zillions' numbers.
Has somebody managed to get SMIRF to function under Win98SE? It runs, but plays like a fool, and one cannot change time-setting. I've deinstalled, removed old ini-files, an reinstalled. But it doesn't work. Mats
at a certain point with large boards and many pieces, a variant should
probably have multiple moves per side at a time, instead of 1 move per
side...(Andy)
Double-move variants might be quite functional, at least if the double-move is constituted by a pawn move followed by a piece move. I've implemented this on an 8x8 board with regular pieces. This idea should be applicable on big boards, and with other pieces, too. There exist two variants of Twinmove Chess (zrf). In one variant pawn moves are compelled, until there exist no more pawn moves, when the pieces can continue moving without being preceded by a pawn move. In the other variant the player may abstain from the pawn move, and instead move a piece, but then he has lost his double-move.
Incidentally, I am amazed how relatively easy it is to create fully practicable chess variants. I didn't know this before. This occupation can be viewed almost as an art form. I now better understand why there exist chess variant societies, chess variant journals, and this very site. Actually, it reminds me of medieval alchemy, an activity that mixed rational 'scientific' content with imaginative creations. It is something about this mixture which is quite compelling. -- Mats
Double-move variants might be quite functional, at least if the double-move is constituted by a pawn move followed by a piece move. I've implemented this on an 8x8 board with regular pieces. This idea should be applicable on big boards, and with other pieces, too. There exist two variants of Twinmove Chess (zrf). In one variant pawn moves are compelled, until there exist no more pawn moves, when the pieces can continue moving without being preceded by a pawn move. In the other variant the player may abstain from the pawn move, and instead move a piece, but then he has lost his double-move.
Incidentally, I am amazed how relatively easy it is to create fully practicable chess variants. I didn't know this before. This occupation can be viewed almost as an art form. I now better understand why there exist chess variant societies, chess variant journals, and this very site. Actually, it reminds me of medieval alchemy, an activity that mixed rational 'scientific' content with imaginative creations. It is something about this mixture which is quite compelling. -- Mats
(Just uploaded a little improvement on my Twinmove Chess.)
Blindfold Chess is a time-honoured chess variant (the earliest mention of blindfold chess is from the seventh century) that is not represented on the Chess Variants pages(?). I have created a zrf downloadable here.
Be warned that, although many sources view it as a method of increasing one's playing strength, simultaneous blindfold exhibitions were officially banned in 1930 in the USSR as they could be injurious to health. To avoid chronic brain damage this program lets you view parts of, or the entire piece set, in the form of anonymous markers. Wikipedia has an article on Blindfold chess here. --Mats
Be warned that, although many sources view it as a method of increasing one's playing strength, simultaneous blindfold exhibitions were officially banned in 1930 in the USSR as they could be injurious to health. To avoid chronic brain damage this program lets you view parts of, or the entire piece set, in the form of anonymous markers. Wikipedia has an article on Blindfold chess here.
Burmese Traditional Chess. An article that discusses chess as it was played in Burma. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jean-Louis,
I don't quite understand what you mean. The author actually gives the references:
Edward Falkener, Games Ancient and Oriental and How to Play Them, New York 1962.
John Gollon, Chess Variations, Vermont 1974.
Maung Maung Aye, Myanmar Traditional Chess, Yangon Oct. 1989 (in Myanmar language)
Another book on the subject is
Murray, HJR (1913). A History of Chess. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Burmese Chess is very attractive. I would like to know more about the drop rule (which I implemented in my zrf) and how common that was. It seems like Burmese Chess was, in some quarters, played with standard setups.--Mats
I don't quite understand what you mean. The author actually gives the references:
Edward Falkener, Games Ancient and Oriental and How to Play Them, New York 1962.
John Gollon, Chess Variations, Vermont 1974.
Maung Maung Aye, Myanmar Traditional Chess, Yangon Oct. 1989 (in Myanmar language)
Another book on the subject is
Murray, HJR (1913). A History of Chess. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Burmese Chess is very attractive. I would like to know more about the drop rule (which I implemented in my zrf) and how common that was. It seems like Burmese Chess was, in some quarters, played with standard setups.
Randompawns Chess (Chess 256) is a new take on the problem of creating a randomized initial position. The opening setup for the pawns is chosen randomly while satisfying the condition that the pawns must be either placed on the second or third rank. There are 256 possible configurations on the 8x8 board. All of them are sound and balanced, and fully playable. This implies a thourough kill of opening theory (except in one case of 256). Black's setup mirrors white's. In all other respects this game is the same as orthodox chess. The opening setup for the pieces on the first rank is the same as in orthodox chess. A zrf can be downloaded here. --Mats
Sam, for this game I investigated many initial positions, even non-mirrored. This was the only one I found that was good, I think. Why I didn't choose the 'natural' positions of bishops and knights had to do with the fact (if I recollect correctly) that the enemy mastodon would lose its natural development square on b3, b6, i3, i6. Also, the flank pawn would also be initially threathened by the bishop, which would be a hindrance to castling. It's possible that my 10x10 version of MastodonChess is better, at least more strategical. Thank you for the information on TamerSpiel. --Mats
This is a new(?) pawn that I call Scorpion and it has two extra, oblique, movement directions, but no extra captures. Luckily, 'pion' means just pawn in espanol. It works very fine. It makes the games more lively. I suppose it could be introduced to practically any chess variant, instead of the standard pawn. It's all yours!
Try it! I made a zrf that I call Scorpion chess, featuring this new dangerous pawn. --Mats
Try it! I made a zrf that I call Scorpion chess, featuring this new dangerous pawn.
I don't want to be a nag, but I urge you to evaluate this. Two Scorpion
pawns have the same value as a light piece. This contributes to the
stability of the positions, despite the increase in the tactical possibilities.
This new pawn could probably spice up many big-board variants, too.
Scorpion chess.
--Mats
Scorpion chess.
--Mats
Oblong chess. Variant of Shatranj, played on a four by sixteen sized board. (4x16, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Moreover, in Juell's Zillion's implementation I found the following errors in the setup: Setup B: black's pawn chain is 1 rank misplaced. Setup G: black's king should be on b16, not c16. --Mats
I have now added variants without die to my
Oblong Shatranj (chess).
The variants with die now play better. I hope that the setups are now correct according to Murray.
--Mats
The variants with die now play better. I hope that the setups are now correct according to Murray.
--Mats
Where is Casaux Chess? I can't find it when searching. --Mats
Oblong chess. Variant of Shatranj, played on a four by sixteen sized board. (4x16, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Dear JL, are you certain of these rules? Bodlaender says about Oblong chess (above link): 'Moving is not obligatory. In this variant, a win is achieved by taking the opponents king.' If win is achieved by king capture, then it must be allowable to move within check, and to let the king remain within check. In chess variants with die, the king capture rule is natural. Checkmate and check rules don't work properly. As to the promotion rules. I am not convinced that all Shatranj variants only promoted to fers. In four-handed Shatranj pawns promoted to Queens. In the still older 4-handed Chaturanga, pawns promoted to any piece, but depending on which square they promoted on. The ferz promotion rule is not universal. The reason why I believe that promotion was to any piece is because, in this dice game, it would be too hard to win otherwise. As to the bare king rule, I did not enforce this because it's so unlikely to happen. With promotion to rook, the king will be captured long before he is bare. But all rules don't need to be enforced. The player can decide himself that it's a win when the king is bare. --Mats
I have now introduced the Scorpion pawn to the following games. It clearly adds zest to the games.
Elephant Chess
Samhain Chess
Mammoth Chess
Mammoth Chess (8x10)
Scorpion Chess
A case in point is Elephant Chess, which was, perhaps, a little dull and drawish before. Now it's more lively.
--Mats
Elephant Chess
Samhain Chess
Mammoth Chess
Mammoth Chess (8x10)
Scorpion Chess
A case in point is Elephant Chess, which was, perhaps, a little dull and drawish before. Now it's more lively.
--Mats
Feedback to the Chess Variant Pages - How to contactus. Including information on editors and associate authors of the website.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]There is no such 16 move rule. There is a 50 move rule, however, which says that a pawn must be moved within 50 moves, otherwise the game is declared a draw. --Mats
I have been experimenting with yet another pawn, the 'Harpy'. It can 'unfold its wings' and fly to any empty square on the board, except the first and last rank. Its value is 1.5. I have implemented it in Harpy Chess (zrf). I suppose it can be introduced in many chess variants. It works because, after it has landed, it costs a move to 'fold its wings', and become a normal Harpy pawn again. In the mean time the Harpy cannot move.(BTW, my 'Shamanic Chess' has been much improved.)
--Mats
Enochian Chess. Four-player team variant of the Golden Dawn. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I believe that the divination aspect was very important in historical chess variants. Nigel Pennick, in 'Games of the Gods' (1988), discusses this aspect in games generally. The dice chess variants are particularly suited for divination, it seems, such as Oblong Shatranj with die. --Mats
Jeff, concerning divination, this phenomenon of how the divine
coincides with the profane is evident in religious history. Prof.
Rangachar Vasantha says that '...[c]hess was genetically linked to
magical and religious rituals, which have been known in India from
ancient times. Chess and other board games were derived from, and
the moves of the pieces are being closely related to the movements
of the celestial bodies and their numerical symbolism.'
We modern people tend to see chess as simply a martial game for entertainment. But such a simplistic view was unthinkable for the ancient people.Pavle Bidev discusses these issues and how Murray,
typically, rejected the notion that original chess was 'based upon
certain fundamental conceptions of the Universe.'
http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/bidev1.html
Game depictions notoriously appear at holy places. They could, in some sense, have been deliberate sacrifices to the gods, and the spirits of the dead, for their pleasure and entertainment. Hence, the gods are drawn to the temple. It is similar to the well-known food-sacrifice. In the Christian context the encircling of the Fox, in Fox and Geese, could be viewed as an expression of the cloister community's continuous work to encircle Christ. I mean, it could be viewed as an unconscious expression. Thus, it is not wholly profane.
A good example of a 'holy game' was the Egyptian Senet. The '...stratagems of the game reflect nothing less than the stratagems of the gods, [and] senet, when properly understood, can reveal essential Egyptian religious beliefs about the afterlife.'
http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Archives/Piccione/index.html --Mats
(link updated today)
We modern people tend to see chess as simply a martial game for entertainment. But such a simplistic view was unthinkable for the ancient people.
http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/bidev1.html
Game depictions notoriously appear at holy places. They could, in some sense, have been deliberate sacrifices to the gods, and the spirits of the dead, for their pleasure and entertainment. Hence, the gods are drawn to the temple. It is similar to the well-known food-sacrifice. In the Christian context the encircling of the Fox, in Fox and Geese, could be viewed as an expression of the cloister community's continuous work to encircle Christ. I mean, it could be viewed as an unconscious expression. Thus, it is not wholly profane.
A good example of a 'holy game' was the Egyptian Senet. The '...stratagems of the game reflect nothing less than the stratagems of the gods, [and] senet, when properly understood, can reveal essential Egyptian religious beliefs about the afterlife.'
http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Archives/Piccione/index.html
(link updated today)
Joost, you have a strong point there. There is an immense number of interesting possibilities. A piece could be a rook in its fight mode, but it can in an instant turn into some kind of long-leaper, for instance. Why it works is because it costs a move to return it to its rook-state again, which is necessary, because it cannot capture in its long-leap state. The Harpy was implemented so that it must return to fight state before being again able to move like a Flying Harpy. But it's also possible to implement the double mode piece so that it can remain in the transport-mode, and make several non-capturing leaps in that state. It depends on the game context which is best, I suppose. --Mats
Net Chess: It's an interesting concept, but the Z engine plays it very
badly. Zillions programmers should know that there are simple methods of
tweaking which makes the program play much better. Most of my chess zrf:s
have been tweaked in order to function. It's a great waste that
programmers implement chess varaints but don't bother to make them play
well. In this case the engine always puts pieces on the intersections
because they cannot be captured there. On the other hand they are useless
there. So, for instance, one could punish this move by flipping an
invisible piece beside the board.
(BTW, I have now tweaked my Harpy Chess to play better.)
(BTW, I have now tweaked my Harpy Chess to play better.)
Capablanca's Chess. Play Capablanca's Chess on the Play-by-Mail system![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Try my zrf. How does it compare?
Capablanca's Chess.
By the way, does anybody know why Capablanca's setup is, by some, regarded inferior to the setup in Gothic Chess, for instance?
--Mats
By the way, does anybody know why Capablanca's setup is, by some, regarded inferior to the setup in Gothic Chess, for instance?
--Mats
Stephen, to create a 4-handed chess program that you can use as an interface to play over the Internet is easy in Zillions. However, it's not easy to make the engine play a good game of 4-handed chess. It's much better at 2-handed chess. I don't understand the argument that it allows a fools mate. Fide- chess also allows a fools mate in two moves. But it still the best setup. BTW, there is no fool's mate in Capablanca's chess. (There is some problem with this message board software because it allows too long lines. Line break doesn't seem to work sometimes. I had to manually insert some CRs in order not to exceed line length.) -Mats
A new piece, correct me if I'm wrong. The Elk moves differently depending on the colour of the square. If positioned on a black square it moves like a Rook. If positioned on a white square it moves like a Knight. This actually works! The knight move always implies change of square colour. It is a very interesting piece for the tactician. It is logical to combine a short leaper with a long slider this way. Note that it is a much lighter piece than the Chancellor. The Elk's value is 4, that is, Knight + pawn, or Bishop + pawn. In regular chess the Rooks play a passive role in the first half of the game. The Elk has part of the Rook's power, which can now be utilized early in the game. It is powerful enough to give mate to a lonely King.
The elk (amer. 'moose') has actually been trained for battle service, in the cavalry of Charles XII of Sweden (1682-1718). Elks are much faster and more powerful than horses. However, it proved a time-consuming and costly task to train elks so the project was abandoned.
I implemented a zrf called Elk Chess.
--Mats
The elk (amer. 'moose') has actually been trained for battle service, in the cavalry of Charles XII of Sweden (1682-1718). Elks are much faster and more powerful than horses. However, it proved a time-consuming and costly task to train elks so the project was abandoned.
I implemented a zrf called Elk Chess.
--Mats
Joe, the evaluation of the Elk builds on tests with Zillions. Zillions internal evaluation algorithm places its value between a knight and rook. It is quite logical because it is not a knight *and* rook. It is a knight *or* rook. Hence its value is the average of 3 and 5. However, as its knight capabilities are reduced (it cannot jump to white squares) its value should be less than 4. But the Elk's maneuverability makes its rook capabilities more useful. This increases its value to around 4. I suppose it's logical. It is true that I have chosen the simple method of exchanging a piece in the Fide setup. It is much easier to test a piece in a well-known context. Moreover, the result happens to be quite fun and interesting. New tactical and strategical aspects are introduced. But please feel free to use the new pieces in more ambitious game constructs. Due to its relative low evaluation it is a very useful piece. Comparatively, a Chancellor isn't very useful. Its value is so great so you can't use it very much, except exchanging it for an enemy Chancellor or queen. --Mats
Joe, I followed your suggestion and replaced the knights with Elks, instead of the rooks. It's implemented as a variant in my Elk Chess. It seems to work fine, too. I think it has to do with the fact that the Elk's value is on a par with the other pieces. If one introduces Chancellors to the Fide setup, I don't think the game would work very well.
--Mats
(and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version)
--Mats
(and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version)
Doug, Yes, in the variant where Elks replace the rooks. --Mats
Alfred, I don't think it matters much that names sometimes collide. If I search the Internet, and check the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, then I will find that all the good names are already taken. If the name 'Scorpion' had already been used by an established chess variant, then I would have chosen another name. But the 'Scorpion King' is more of a phantasy piece,it's fun, but will surface very rarely. I did not know about the 'Elch', but it seems like it hasn't even been implemented in a game(?). Then it's no problem at all. I can employ that name for a piece that is likely to be more successful than the 'Elch'. In chess it is common rule that it's not the first inventor of a variation that has the right to the variation name. The variation receives the name of the chessplayer who has employed the variation, analysed it, played it, and put down a great deal of work in it. Anybody could invent opening variations 'en masse'. This does not mean that they belong to this chess player and that ECO should relate his name. It's the same thing with chess pieces. Anybody could invent chess pieces. But that's not enough. He has to employ them in a game construct, etc. And when it has become established and well-known, then the piece name is fully established, too. I don't think anybody would name their new pieces Chancellor or Archbishop, for instance.
Alfred, I think the asymmetry in Elk Chess is probably good.
It creates a strategical tension, and castling will tend to be
on different wings. Moreover, should it not be asymetric, then
the Elks would tend to be exchanged immediately, e.g.,
1.Eg3 Eg6.
Concerning the Elephant (in my Elephant Chess), this is not
my invention. It derives from time-honoured Burmese Chess,
where it is called Elephant, and it also exists in Shogi, where
it is called Silver General.
--Mats
It creates a strategical tension, and castling will tend to be
on different wings. Moreover, should it not be asymetric, then
the Elks would tend to be exchanged immediately, e.g.,
1.Eg3 Eg6.
Concerning the Elephant (in my Elephant Chess), this is not
my invention. It derives from time-honoured Burmese Chess,
where it is called Elephant, and it also exists in Shogi, where
it is called Silver General.
--Mats
Zip Chess . After the first move, Pawns can advance any distance.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Why don't Zillions programmers post their games to the Zillions site, too? Then their zrf:s needn't disappear like this.
Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not convinced that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this variant works anyway. Time will tell. --Mats
Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes they will. --Mats
Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already told. But when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it as a variant. There is too much touchiness in this forum sometimes. I have not claimed that the Mammoth is my invention. I say on my homepage, and in my zrf:s that '...The Mammoth piece (also called Mastodon) is not entirely new. Under other names it appears as the queen analog in Grand Shatranj and as the royal piece in Atlantean Barroom Shatranj. In EV Greenwood's Renniassance Chess (not misspelt) from 1980, the piece is named Squire.' So these allegations directed against me are false. Other inventors have already acquired the Squire and renamed it, before I did so. Probably they had no idea that the Squire existed. Moreover, the demand that I should have to check up every obscure fairy piece in all kinds of publications, before I appropriate a piece name, is ridiculous. Anyway, I now leave this forum because there is a very strange underlying enmity here. I feel no need to put up with it. --Mats
Secutor Chess. Introducing the Secutor piece, and new collision-capture, on a Gustavian board (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]How about thanking me for the work I put down, instead? I decided to abandon this forum to avoid being hacked on. Obviously it didn't help. In fact, I have lately been been using four board types: Gustavian, H-board, the 80-squared board, and the standard board. The reason why I link externally is because I cannot upload any files because of some error. Even though I have created many new interesting pieces this is regarded as so unimportant so I shouldn't be allowed more than one little external link page. It is astoundingly ungenerous! I do not simply add a new piece to a board arbitrarely. All my variants have been tested to create the setup which is the most strategically many-sided. Many setups simply don't work. I have also created new graphics. I have introduced these pieces in a regular piece context so it's easier to get a feel for them, and decide upon the piece-value of the new piece. All the games have a different character, and they work very fine. My idea is that the new pieces can later be inserted in other more unusual contexts, with several different piece types. Namik Sade has already begun doing this work, in two new games, as far as I know. By using my programs you can decide whether you like the piece, and whether it's suitable in your own game construct. I have endeavoured to create pieces (I have discarded several) which function well together with the Western piece set. As their piece-value seem to rhyme with the traditional pieces, they can be mutually exchanged, something which greatly increases the combinative, and strategical, possibilities. I suspect this aspect has received too little attention in many game constructs. One should not simply add many pieces to a board without investigating their relations, in terms of value. The game could become cramped an uninteresting, because the pieces must often avoid each other, and the combinative and strategical possibilities are thereby reduced. Those people, like 'none' (a suitable name), who think that my games are not innovative enough, simply don't understand chess. What makes a chess variant interesting is what goes on *under* the surface, in terms of interesting combinations, endgame qualities, and strategical brainteasers. With these new pieces new forms of combinations are introduced to the chessboard, which have never occured before in chess history. Such aspects decide whether a game has original and striking characteristics, and not whether it appears, on the surface, to be innovative. If you create a game on a star-shaped board, for instance, and put many unusual pieces on it, this does not necessarily mean that it's a genuinely innovative variant. I am convinced that my variants are good games, but it should be possible to create even better games by introducing these new pieces in other contexts. That's for other innovators to ponder over. Moreover, it's likely that the new methods of movement, the bounce-movement, the collision-capture, two leg cannon capture, etc., can stimulate yet more piece-types. In Doublebarrel Chess I introduce practical new rules for introducing a pair of extra pieces to the standard board. My contributions should stimulate game constructors, and fairy problem composers, while people with inferiority complexes ought to shut up.
(Thanks Jeremy) Andy says that I am 'extremely rude', but he has no complaints about the anonymous poster who tries to convince the editors to remove my chess variants and merely allow me one page. Talk about rudeness! Obviously this person is a regular visitor to this page, otherwise he wouldn't have visited the 'What's New' page and expressed this kind of view. It doesn't speak to his advantage that he chooses to remain anonymous when criticising others.
ChessV. Program for playing numerous Chess variants against your PC.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A match was played between Zillions and ChessV (v.0.9), at 15s per
move on a 1.6 Ghz computer. ChessV is white in the odd games.
The result was 4 - 4. Zillions won both in Janus Chess. ChessV
calculates deeper, but Zillions's evaluation function seems better.
I suppose ChessV is stronger in the more technical variants, such
as Kinglet Chess. Probably the result will vary much depending
on computer and time used. My own zrf was used for this match.
Several games were quite interesting. The games are included
in the zip-file.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/capablanca.htm
Zillions vs. ChessV
_________________________
Janus Chess: 1 - 0, 1 - 0
Capablanca's: 1/2 - 1/2, 0 - 1
Bird's Chess: 1/2 - 1/2, 0 - 1
Embassy Chess: 1 - 0, 0 - 1
Mats W
move on a 1.6 Ghz computer. ChessV is white in the odd games.
The result was 4 - 4. Zillions won both in Janus Chess. ChessV
calculates deeper, but Zillions's evaluation function seems better.
I suppose ChessV is stronger in the more technical variants, such
as Kinglet Chess. Probably the result will vary much depending
on computer and time used. My own zrf was used for this match.
Several games were quite interesting. The games are included
in the zip-file.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/capablanca.htm
Zillions vs. ChessV
_________________________
Janus Chess: 1 - 0, 1 - 0
Capablanca's: 1/2 - 1/2, 0 - 1
Bird's Chess: 1/2 - 1/2, 0 - 1
Embassy Chess: 1 - 0, 0 - 1
Mats W
Pegniar Chess. Introducing the Pegniar, a very interesting bifurcating bounce-slider, on a Gustavian board (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It could be a good idea to try the Gustavian board in cases where you could use the standard 80-square board. Strategically it's a different game. The knights remain equal in value to the bishops. The pawns retain their strategical importance as there are only eight of them. The Gustavian board allows less free space to the Archbishop and the Chancellor and so their tactical possibilities are fewer. It's a different game, but whether it's better is another thing. My Pegniar Chess is today updated as the previous setup was awkward while it made the Pegniars too dominant. Mats
Sam, I have downloaded your Capablanca Gustavian from Yahoo. You have in some variants placed the rooks on the extra corner squares instead of the Archbishops/Chancellors. The rooks are hemmed in on those squares whereas the Archbishops/Chancellors are not. Your 'Flanking Archbishops Gustavian' is much better. May I suggest that you use the H-board for those variants where the rooks must be placed on the extra squares? Then the rook has immediate access to the a- and h-files. You could also implement a new form of castling (H-board castling). Then you could also keep the regular coordinates. In all variants you could also keep the standard castling rules. There should also be a variant with an Archbishop and Chancellor on the extra Gustavian squares. Mats
What? The Saudia-Arabian government has banned my site? But you can also download my variants from http://www.zillionsofgames.com/ . Christine and Namik post their games here, too, and a few others, like K. Scherer, who only post their variants there. Mats
ChessV. Program for playing numerous Chess variants against your PC.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Awkward play by Zillions in the opening. But Zillions can easily be made to make good pawn opening moves by introducing rewards for such moves. As soon as Zillions has moved two pawns he continues to move pawns and pieces in a natural way. One can also introduce a reward for castling, and punish early queen moves. If one makes these additions to the code then Zillions plays chess very humanlike and positionally interesting. The effect is remarkable. Zillions's style is quite humanlike because it plays such a varied game of chess. It also understands to attack with the pawn on the flanks. It is sad that Zillions programmers don't use these tricks because there are so many implementations where Zillions plays too much with the pieces in the opening, which makes the games less interesting, and the play much weaker. You can have a look at the code in my zrf's. In most cases you can simply copy it, although it can certainly be improved in many ways. Note that I have often also added links from the corner squares. This simple trick is a good idea because it discourages Zillions from wasting king moves to the corner squares, something which is even more important in the Gustavian case.
Secutor Chess. Introducing the Secutor piece, and new collision-capture, on a Gustavian board (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I cannot upload any images, I get an error, so I could not write an article. But my bifurcation pieces would really need an overview article. Some of these pieces are good, I think. Mats
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
(and now I have uploaded an improved version, that plays better)