Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

This is very fun (but very long!) to play. I like it more than Terachess II because the extra pawn rank allows for more blocking and the very powerful pieces come singly instead of in pairs.

The author, Jean-Louis Cazaux, has updated this page.

Very impressive!!!

It is a link to the sources of the code,

To play : http://biscandine.fr/variantes/bigorra/tablier/browser/parametrer.html?game=bigorra-chess

It is the link of the sources : You can play here : http://biscandine.fr/variantes/bigorra/tablier/browser/parametrer.html?game=bigorra-chess

@François: is that the good link? I don't come to the jocly board when I click on it. I'm getting a directory and I am unable to see what to do.

Here is a jocly implementation : https://github.com/fhoudebert/jocly/tree/bigorra

@HG Muller : 4 new fairy pieces might be interesting for you : mammouth, troll, hawk and griffon

Thanks HG. Very clear. As I said, I'm particularly tired, just coming back from a trip this week and I need to sleep more. I had forgot how "my" K moves! Thanks.

@HG: how come the Prince's value is estimated less than the King's one by the ID? Is the royal character adding points?

Well, somewhere deep down this topic thread you asked the question quoted above. The point is that you define the King as KimAimDimN. So a King that hasn't moved yet has potentially 16 more moves than a King that has moved, from the ADN part. The problem was that the Interactive Diagram was determining the King value as if it would always have those extra non-captures, no matter where it was on the board, or how many moves it had already made. Those extra moves caused it to value the King higher than it should have.

I guess HaruNY just used the Queen as an example; the more initial moves you add, the more the ID would overestimate the value. Basically it would have treated iQ as if it was a normal Q. And iQ provides a lot of moves.

All that should be solved now.

Of course it was never really a problem on the King, as the King was the only royal piece here, so its capture would not result in the score increasing by its estimated piece value, but would increase it to 'infinity'. Because you would have won the game. So the value of a royal piece would never be used, unless you had more than one, with extinction royalty, so that the game can go on after capture of one.

Ah, thank you. Then, better say "unmoved", "virgin" can be understood in different ways.

Virgin is an unmoved piece

HG, I might be tired or I don't know what, but I don't understand nothing. The question was talking about the Queen, you talk about King and Prince. And what is an initial non-capture? Why a King has 16 of them? And a virgin form? Sorry, if it is obvious for people, I have missed something.

This refers to your question why the the Interactive Diagram estimated a higher value for King than for Prince. This was actually a bug, which I thought I had fixed. But apparently I only fixed it in betzaNew.js, not in betza.js.

The problem was that for estimating the value it put the piece on the board (to count its moves) in the virgin form, rather than as a piece that has already moved. So the King always had all his 16 initial non-captures, why the Prince only has a single non-capture double push. Initial moves do not really contribute to piece value, so it should have placed the piece it was estimating on the board as a piece that has moved, so that the initial moves are not possible, and thus not counted.

I fixed this now. (Cache flush needed!)

@HaruNY: I don t understand your question. Not even even sure it is a question or a remark. Which piece are you talking about?

I know you're not asking me, but ID estimate a piece that can move like a Queen on the 1st move have the same value as a Queen

@Ben: well, at the end of the day, it is not a bad exercice for me to code again the lines for the ID. It is an effort, but I should not complain too much, it's part of the fun. I had forgot about Fergus's history tool indeed, thanks for the reminder.

Yikes, I'm sorry you've had to go through so much additional effort Jean-Louis.

Are you familiar with the version history tool Fergus added? It's under the Edit menu, and lets you view, compare, and restore previous versions of the page. It's sometimes a little fickle, though that might've just been related to a server move?...

Anyway, keeping local copies is probably a good idea.

We should restart a discussion around the text entry editor we're using, CKEditor. Switching to a new text editor would be painful, but we might be at the point to do it, if we can find something suitable. Or would it be enough to switch to Markdown as the default format? Or have HTML format work without CKEditor (keeping that just for WYSIWYG format)?

In order to prevent that to happen again, I have saved every ID code of my games into a .doc file. I had 15 files to save, quite a lot, but, now I have a safe copy in case of accident again.

I congratulate you on your patience. I'm not sure I couldn've done something like that so quickly.

I re-made it and put it back. It costed me the full evening, about 3h.

Aaaargh!!! Sht sht!!! This is a pain. I noticed that the indexing information for Bigorra was "timurthelenk". This is my alias. So, I edited the page, then I selected the editing of indexing information. Indeed, the case for the indexing information lies just above the case for entering the alias. I corrected the indexing information, then I saved.

At this moment I've seen that my browser was proposing to save my password with a new alias, which was exactly the text I had just entered as indexing information. I guess there is a mistake in the code which is mixing both fields.

But, more annoying, and without notice, the page was in the edit mode with a togle automatically set as WYSISWYG!!! For all sections!!! Too late, I've lost the ID diagram. This is a pain. It is a trap. I'm not a IS guy, so I won't probably be able to understand the reasons why, I just know that it is a pain. It is not userfriendly.

Thanks (originally I had a 14x14 in mind). Corrected.

I'm amazed that that one got past me....

16x16 is 256 cells not 196.