The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments by Aurelian Florea

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
This item is an unknown type!
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2003-09-09
 Author: Fergus  Duniho. Game Courier Logs. View the logs of games played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-04 UTC

I made a comment with a picture,in Enep, could that be the problem?


This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2016-08-31
 By Aurelian  Florea. Enep. An experimental variant with enhanced knights and an extra pawn. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-06 UTC

H.G. and Greg,

This Enep page has been out for a while, have you noticed my last comments? How would you conclude a view on Enep?

Thanks!


AAnca vs Griffin on crowded boards[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-10 UTC

I was goofing around with calculations of mobility for aanca and griffin, and I got a counter-intuitive result. I think my algorithm is wrong as it gives a slightly bigger mobility for the aanca on very crowded boards. As the board empties of course the griffin has more squares so a bigger mobility. The question is: Is my algoritm wrong claiming stronger aanca on very crowded boards or am I wrong stating the opposite?

Unrelated: What does aanca mean in spanish?


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-10 UTC

Not really, rooks always have the larger mobility, Bishops are running the show as they are the weaker piece and so opening principles state that it should be developed earlier. The fact it can go through pawn chains and better forwardess helps that but strictly mobilityly speaking rooks are better than bishops. What I think could be the case is that the aanca is actually a short range rook and the griffin is an short range bishop if the board is crowded enough that short range is all you get (50%). I am still baffled by this result, but the more I think about the more it makes sense.


12x12 board queens and berolina pawns![Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-10 UTC

Me, again with two silly questions:

How many normal pawns a queen on a 12x12 board worth? We assume the pawn may promote to anything. I'm guessing 14-15 based on the progression given by omega chess and grand chess where the queen worth 11-12 pawns(n.b. the omega chess pawn is stronger as it promotes to anything, how much stronger is very difficult to say I guess).

What is the difference in strngth between a chess pawn and a berolina pawn. To me the chess pawn seems a bit more powerful is it has two capture moves (acording to HG Muller 2x as important as  regular moves); on the other hand the berolina prmoted more easy, assuming they promote to the same things that shold worth something. I think the difference if any is small; Is it neglijible?


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-11 UTC

Thanks, HG.,

Another question just for you. Does the new fairymax support 15x10 boards?


This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2005-05-01
 By Joe  Joyce. Modern Shatranj. A bridge between modern chess and the historic game of Shatranj. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-11 UTC

If you don't mind modern shatranj is an inspiration allong with shatraj kamil for my own 15x10 I shall complete and publish in a few months or so, actually I'm thinking on the name great modern shatranj. Are you ok with that, Joe?


12x12 board queens and berolina pawns![Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-11 UTC

Thanks, HG!


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-11 UTC

I'm working on more large board variants. Among them there is one 15x10 and two 12x12. From your explanation I think a 12x12 variant with camels and zebras won't work either, which is sad. Am I correct?


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-11 UTC

The point of this beeing that I'm going to work on my own machine learning AI for those games, starting in a few weeks or so, when this is done I'll publish the variants. I was hopping to pit my AI against Fairymax and maybe against the new ChessV, if Greg Strong is here and listens. I understand, sadly there isn't much chance for that!


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-11 UTC

I guess I was wrong earlier, a 12x12 with zebras and camels would work, an 14x12 with zebras and camels won't work, am I correct, HG?You were clear, it's just that I misread between the lines!


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-11 UTC

From what I understand a 15 files board of fairymax would accept even my worst case scenario of a knight that has an (5,0) lateral move.

Reworking the program it's worthwhile for me if it makes my variant work with fairymax.

In order to understand why this is important, for you too Greg Strong if you are here, a little bit on how my programs work. First there is an engine- game rules and stuff nothing fancy. Then there is the AI which works in the same manner as deep pink (https://erikbern.com/2014/11/29/deep-learning-for-chess/). So it learns through examples. The difference between deep pink and my programs is that deep pink had a huge database for chess to learn from. I have nothing but a new variant. So, reinforcement learning. But one or two professional (to the extent we may call chess variant programming professional) engines will fasten a lot espeacially the early developement of my catugo (as this is how it will be named after georg CAntor, allan TUring, kurt GOdel- I really like the continuum hypothesys and related issues) AI. This could be done by pitting FairyMax against ChessV and/or Catugo and then learn from experience.

Dear HG, in my book that makes it worthwhile, but no pressure.

P.S. HG it's so nice to learn from you,  no machine learning pun intended!


New Guy Trying to publish a variant![Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

Fergus,

I have written to you again an email at [email deleted] regarding an article I'd like to publish. Could you take a look! Is it worthy for publishing? Thanks!


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

Ok, thanks!


[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

The next evolution of chess

 

As a chess variantist inventor two matters preoccupy me the most. The first is the next evolution of chess meaning which game, or most likely games, if any, will take a mainstream place along the classic western chess. The second matter is what will happen to computer chess now that even go has fallen under the dictatorship of computers through the defeat of multiple world champion Lee Sedol. This article is about the first matter.

In my view the first evolution of chess was chaturanga/shatranj. I'm not much of a chess historian but suffices to say that in the 18th century our classic western chess was dominating. That is the second evolution of chess. This one is still here. What about the 3rd evolution of chess? Well it is very much prepared. Beginning in the 1970, maybe with the rise of personal computers, a number of chess variants have appeared (not that they weren't any older ones). Although only two of these variants are claiming to be the next evolution of chess I'll enumerate all my personal favorites for that stating that there are 3 likely candidates -tier 1- and 3 tier 2 candidates.

The tier I candidates are in my view Omega chess, Grand Chess (those 2 claiming that stature) and Ralph Betza's chess with different armies. The tier two candidates are Wildebeast chess, Eurasian chess and Shako. Why those? Well let's go through some principles the next evolution of chess should follow.

The game should be bigger. Well it's not much of an evolution if the game doesn't get bigger.

The game should be simple. Not weird principles or weird pieces, not to say that atomic chess isn't fun, but we aim for generality.

The game should be interesting and fun.

This is not a principle but a fact, the game should become fairly popular (actually Eurasian chess and Shako are not fairly popular but they respect the other principles).

It is my opinion also that if a game is completly solved meaning there is a program that gives perfect play in all cases than it should go down the history path.

What about Arimaa? Well, in my view Arimaa is not chess anymore, and also it handles itself rather neatly through a fervent community.

Also it is my opinion that the tier one games for the next evolution of chess should coexist meaning there should be a world champion in each an Olympiad in each and so on. And why not a triathlon of the three for really crazy players.

The main topic of this discussion are the two claimers, Omega chess and Grand chess.

First the good things that make them tier 1 candidates for the next evolution of chess. Cristian Freeling's idea to push pieces forward and leave the rooks back was a very good enhancement brought to the Capablanca chess family. Omega chess bring two new pieces to the table that make for very interesting play. First, those games should learn from each other, second they don't have enough pieces (omega chess doesn't have enough strong pieces and Grand chess doesn't have enough minor pieces), third the knight is to slow. Fourth as a personal flavor I don't like the Omega chess board with corners, although I admit that changing the rook into a minor piece has it's flavor. Five in omega chess opening the champion and especially the wizard are to far from the initial action. Omega chess has a version of itself named omega chess advanced where the knight has an added zebra just move solving one of the problems stated above. Also omega chess advanced introduces the foul, a very interesting piece. The foul imitates the last move ability of the opponent, which makes it a very interesting piece in my opinion. The second ability of the foul is to immobilize enemy pieces within a kings move. Introduction of this rule could go under debate but I think Grand chess really needs a foul.

Before going to my proposals on the matters raised, I just want to state that I believe Omega chess and Grand chess to be very well done, just not perfect.

What do I propose?

For advanced omega chess, push the pieces one rank ahead, put the rooks in the corner, put the champions and wizards in the middle of the bottomest rank, start with a griffin (a griffin is a piece that makes a diagonal move then an rookwise move) and an aanca (an aanca is a piece that makes an orthogonal move then a bishopwise move). Corner squares are debatable. We get the diagram bellow:

r  . . w c c w  . . r
. g n b q k b n a .
p p p p p p p p p p
. .   . .  . .   . .  . .

. .   . .  . .   . .  . .

. .   . .  . .   . .  . .

. .   . .  . .   . .  . .

P P P P P P P P P P
.  G N B Q K B N A .
R .  .  W C C W . .  R

For grand chess add a treeper ((3,3) diagonal jump) just move to the knight, so that we don't actually copy omega chess, add two modern elephant+just move threeleaper ((3,0)orthogonal jump),so ferz+alfil+just move threeleaper. Add an Camel with an just move wazir and a Zebra with a just move ferz (for mobility and colorboundness negation) start with a foul in hand an we get this diagram:

r  .  . z e e l  .  .  r
. n b q k m a b n .
p p p p p p p p p p
. .   . .  . .   . .  . .
. .   . .  . .   . .  . .
. .   . .  . .   . .  . .
. .   . .  . .   . .  . .

P P P P P P P P P P
 . N B Q K M A B N  .
R  .  . Z E E L  .   . R

25 pieces (with the foul) are exactly one quarter of the board like in regular chess.

I also propose that pawn should promote to anything on rank 10 and to at most a rook on ranks 8 and 9. I propose no castling. Castling rules can be invented if desired. Pawn double move and en passant are like in classic western chess as the distance between white and black pawns is the same.

I don't consider these new variants but variations of the original games, and I believe them to be perfect for tier I next evolution of chess. I hope the gods of chess variants will forgive me for daring to try to improve such well recognized variants.

What about chess with different armies. That's also a brilliantly done variation but in my opinion it can also use a foul. Because the board is so small the fouls ability to immobilize should be reduced to a ferz or wazir area, or scraped altogether. If a foul imitates the move of the last moving opponent piece it will take from the flavor of chess with different armies, so my proposition is that the foul should move like the last counterpart of the move piece from the player's army (i.e. Move my bede if a rook has just been moved, move like a charging knight if a half duck has just been moved). One may also try to allow promotion to knight or bishop or their counterparts on rank 7. Just saying.

As for wildbeast chess, eurasian chess and shako I consider them lesser candidates so I don't put them under microscope.

What about the 4th evolution of chess. For now leave that on me, for my next article, and my next variants.

Please excuse the poor diagrams.

I'm waiting for your comments.


0000000100000000[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

I see this topic has been discussed before so I'm catching up! See you soon!


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

I see this topic has been discussed before, so I'm cathing up, see you soon!


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

I, too play shogi on ocasions and I believe to be very interesting. I'm not quite sure what you meant by prolonging the strong pieces in relation with what I wrote.


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

I also believe that making the games a bit longer comes naturally. Games should become bigger and longer in order to increase complexity.


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

H.G.

I understand now what you are saying, but rules banning captures are akward. Are you suggesting adding such a rule to grand chess or omega chess (or my variations of them)? Minor pieces have also their atractiveness through chassing away pieces more easily and controlling the center from close range or at least a specific place. I think grand chess has enough major pieces and would benefit from adding weaker ones I guess. I understand you disagree on this specific matter.


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

Kevin,

I don't understand FWIW, but I wached live arimaa players losing to David Wu's bot. I think chess is dieing because of beeing close to beeing strongly solved. If new games are strongly solved so be it. But it will take time. In an older post H.G. Muller stated the games like Omega chess Grand chess(he did not actually used those examples but the point stays) will quickly become strongly solved. Maybe. And this is an issue. But we have to also take in consideration that an 18x18 chess game (GO is 19x19 but has much simpler rules) is impossible for humans.

I've said I have 2 purposes the second beeing creating a huge rich game for computers only. It is 18x18. Computers have no trouble playing for 1 week but humans do. Enough on that particular matter for now.


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

I would be curious if anyone could judge the ability of my enhancement for Omega, Grand and Betza chess variants (well adding a foul to betza chess it's not much of an enhancement), are apropriate for the next evolution of chess, meaning something accepted by FIDE or an equivalent organism in size, an going mainstream. I'm going for the scenario where chess gets strongly solved and they go for something else.

I think eventually board games will become an affair of the bots (until we become robot computers anyway- then who knows) because humans will never catch up, so maybe my endevour (and yours of course) of finding apropriate next evolutions of chess is pointles anyway, but I like to entertain the idea. What do you think on that matter?


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

Chess variant popularizing it's not a top down effort , but designing good variants could be. I don't think evolution, in the sense of natural evolution, will shape most of the new variants but careful consideration of strengths and weaknesess of the game. That being said natural selection has maybe a place in it!


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

Secondly as FIDE already exists, if say someone persuades FIDE to accept 2,3 popular variants, absurdly speaking then definetly more people would learn and enjoy them.

I think, too shogi has a better chance of expanding than Omega or Great chess and partly from the very interesting gameplay, partly because a tradition exists already.


Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-12 UTC

Secondly as FIDE already exists, if say someone persuades FIDE to accept 2,3 popular variants, absurdly speaking then definetly more people would learn and enjoy them.

I think, too shogi has a better chance of expanding than Omega or Great chess and partly from the very interesting gameplay, partly because a tradition exists already.


25 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.