Comments by catugo
Hello again!
I have sent an email at [email protected], but for now nobody answered. Am I impatient, or have I done something wrong? The purpose of said email was to figure out if my idea was worth an full fledged variant status, or it can be classified only as a bunch of interesting experiments. Thanks!
I need to draw a large Xiangqi Board, with two rivers, which is the best way to do this?
Thank you Fergus, on the other hand any news on my enep variant?
Fergus, have I done enough in order to publish my Enep variant or there is more?
Hello again, and excuse my noobness please, Fergus. I am not sure I included the diagrams properly. Could you please verify?
Fergus, I checked the diagrams again for my Enep variant and I think I got them wrong. How do I check the submitted version, as I don't seem to see the diagrams!
I've discovered my mistake, I have put an extra pawn P in the second example array, how can I redo the pictures?
I reintroduced the submission but now it looks rather ugly because there are two images on the same horizontal line. Any advice here?
People feel free to comment on my new experimental variant!
Enep. An experimental variant with enhanced knights and an extra pawn. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I've done several other experiments by hand with this setup and figured out that the side with the extra pawn seems in advantage, although I never tried a bishop pawn setup, maybe that is the key to equality. The second setup seems an always victory for white after several attempts. What do you guys think?
My first instinct after hand play against myself and noticing not only the winner but also the very limited use of the knight enhancement, is that in this case the enhancement worth less than .5 pawns. That is mostly because the knight enhacement doesn't offer much. I'm already thinking about a Grand chess (Cristian Freeling's version) knight enchaced with a threeleaper or tripper (i.e. an (3,0) jumper or an (3,3) jumper). It would matter as it makes the knight faster in a similar manner to the enhanced knight in Omega chess. This could be worth comparable or more to a Grand pawn. What do you guys think about it? This discussion can be applied to Fergus Duniho's Eurasian chess or Jean Louis Cazaux's (I took part of my Ph.D. in Toulouse) Shako. What do you guys think about it?
Hello Greg,
How will you program it, I use c++ to program my other chess variants (not out yet). Will you use Zillions of Games?
I have chessV installed for a long time now. Big Congrats on it, can I program Enep with it, the old version?
One more thing, I play chess rather closed and in my working experience chessV plays rather open, could this matter, if so probably not much. Still 4 points for a knightwa seems a bit much to me, maybe 3.8. Should we try a vs 2 pawns aproach meaning depraving the knightwa side of an pawn? 3.8 could be "lying with numbers" as mister Betza says in a few articles!
@HG
I was aware of your rule of thumb, from somewhere on the internet, I don't remember where. I was out to check it and maybe improve it. But actually what I was most interested in, is there a way to derive these coeficients? I see no reason for them to be linear, although linear (the relationship between capturing strength and movement strength) is always the simplest case, and I don't know all your work, but to me it seems fine in 8x8 settings. Not sure about the enhanced knight in enhanced Omega chess, but I think it is a good aproximation there,too.
All in all I'm very interested for the desing purpose of my own large board variants of an way to derive the "rules of thumb". If you have any ideeas on that I'll be highly apreciative!
@Greg
Thank you very much for all your help, it is highly apreciated!
I added an extra pawn on purpose, mostly to do something different but also as you say it provides a smaller increment in power, if not for any other reason just because 1/9<1/8.
@Greg,
The fact that altering internal values of pieces changes the outcome of the game is very funny, have we accidently discovered computer self-confidence? :)
@Greg
I was not familiar with sjaakII and fairy max, I'll check on those, too. Thanks for this, too, Greg!
HG,
I was thinking that the 1/2 ratio of power of movement vs power of capture is equal to the 1/2 ratio of enemy pieces vs empty squares. Is that a coincidence? If not the power of movement should increase in importance and I don't think that is true.
I think captures are the important thing in the game as captures could change the material balance. So, I was thinking rather than captures and movement to think in terms of captures and future captures (i.e. captures in 2 moves, captures in 3 moves, etc.). As the board empties capturing in two moves increases via the increased power of movement and decreases via decreased number of targets so it seems to be a better model, giving the fact that for example in my Enep knightwas are fairly constant through the game. This line of thinking is reasonable I think for pieces like pao and vao in Eurasian chess. There is a catch with those specific pieces as the power of capture is related to the number of pieces, too.
Based on 3.8 knightwa (or any other knight enhancement) value that should be a balanced game. Is an very akward game, though. I admit the original to be a failure at least from the point of view of balance but Enep has it's flavour from the point of view of having advantages from two different worlds- the world of pawns, and the world of short range leapers. I guess I have to work on the concept as is quite promising.
Greg,
Could you guide me through the process of adding Enep to the old ChessV, with your help I think I can recompile myself!
HG,
I see it is you who has written fairy-max, now I feel silly for not documenting myself enough! I'll try to get it, but I don't know how I can top your research. I care about larger board variants, but I think if the ratio of enemy pieces vs empty squares is the same then your research into different moves and captures holds!
Game Courier Logs. View the logs of games played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I made a comment with a picture,in Enep, could that be the problem?
Enep. An experimental variant with enhanced knights and an extra pawn. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]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!
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?
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.
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?
Thanks, HG.,
Another question just for you. Does the new fairymax support 15x10 boards?
Modern Shatranj. A bridge between modern chess and the historic game of Shatranj. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]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?
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?
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!
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!
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!
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!
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.
40 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
While making experiments for my serious chess variants I stumbled on this : In orthodox chess if you augment both knights with orthogonal one step movement (not capture) and give the other player another queen pawn (D5 or D4) you get a balanced game.
How did I get here: I'm trying to compute values of pieces which have different capture and movement abilities (I'm interested especially in the advanced knight in the advanced omega chess, and pao and vao from Eurasian chess). I'd appreciate any ideas on that (Of course I've read all of Ralph Betza's work!).
I've just made an account. Can someone guide me through the process of becoming an inventor (or contributor I'm not clear on the difference), also giving the fact that I'm flat broke for a few months or so.
Thanks for your time, kind reader!