Comments by catugo

@V.Reinhardt

I'm still working on inventing the game, the rules are done now and I'm calculating piece values, by making tests with ChessV. For your benefit and the benefit of everybody I'll post the complete rules set soon on this discussion. Agreed?

The way I Imagine it the base value of the fool should be changed inside the program after each caputure of opposite pieces, or even in other cases. I'll try to implement that in ChessV as ChessV plays the game as intended (for example is now able to promote pawns to different pieces on different ranks). Would you guys care to speculate what should the fool base value function should contain, as it's value along the game is very weird?

I've decided to add a fool to both games in the initial position after some chessV experiments. There are two ways of putting the fools in the initial position further doubling the posibility for initial positions. Fools may be at C3 for white and h10 for black or at C10 for white and H3 for black. I am now starting to explore piece values with chessV!

As the whole apothecary series (more on that later) is more about me tinckering with chess variants ideas maybe people carring about them should listen to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4p7T9O_tqg

@Greg Strong,

I hope you read this, I really need to speak with you!Please!!!

I have done only one experiment at the time, now I'm improved with doing tests with the computer as Greg Strong was kind enough to include ENEP in his program CHESSV. Fine tunning is impossible but I'm trying different setups mostly for fun! I too have though at multiple ways of tunning among which the ones you mention. And in the ENEP comments section you can see some results of my experiments.

I'm testing the second position mentioned on the article by playing it with ChessV cpu vs cpu!

@Vickalan

Why your name shows question marks to me?

Thanks! I'm doing some experiments, Enep does not seem a balanced game, the side with extra pawn seems stronger!

Sounds Interesting!

I'm willing to help by translating from english and french to Romanian (my native language). The only issue is that I have never written before on wikipedia, I was just a consumer, so any advice would be apreciated!

@ Greg Strong, I've just send you an email, Have you seen it?

No worry, Kevin!

@ Kevin

Why a knightwa should worth 6 pawns as the wazir is a just move power? and it practice is rarely used. As a just move power it never menaces anything directly. According to H.G. Muller's rule of thumb the "wa" power should worth 0.33 of the full wazir which is 1.5*0.33=0.5, so that means a mere 3.5 pawns for the knightwa. It seems in practice it worth even less as the knightwa often gets chased by enemy knights and bishops.

@Greg

There were 100 games played at 30 seconds/move as described earlier. In some games I hand started the first 5-9 ply. But anyway the game doesn't seem to repeat infinitely even without opening book or hand starting of the games, although the first 5-6 ply are the same. I don't know why is that, if you could maybe enlightened me on that one.

@HG Muller

HG, Could you repeat tests with Fairy Max? I have my hands full at the time, otherwise I'll do it myself later.

I've finished the same experiment with reversed colours:

white enhanced knight wins    40    
black extra pawn wins            54
draws                                     6

That means a 57% victory for black. So the color difference is not that important. 

I have made experiments using chessV to play Enep (the online available variant I think is still bugged). The extra pawn side has played white, the enhanced knight side has played black in the usual setup. Time control was 30secs/move. The results are:

white extra pawn wins           50
black enhanced knight wins   35
draws                                   15

That means a 59% ratio win for white. According to HG Muller's rule of thumb the knight enhancement should worth 0.5 pawns. According to HG Muller with Fairy Max pawn odds give 68%. In the enep experiment, assuming linearity and same level of play for fairymax and ChessV, we get half a pawn for the 2 enhanced knights, 0.25 pawns per knight. When seeing that my first instinct was to cast aside HG's rule of thumb. Second thinking though I posed the extra half point not on the weak knightwa but on better center control for the extra pawn side. Could that worth half a pawn?

Any thoughts on this HG?

What about you Greg?

Now I'm in the process of making the same experiment with colors reversed.

This is Fergus Duniho, signed into Aurelian Florea's original account with a new password just to test that it works. It does.

Greg,

Send me an email at [email protected], with the adress where to send you the code!

Hello Dmitry,

As a fellow inventor I'd like to congratulate you for taking the daunting endevour of creating a different armies game. I'm, personally on the fence for that as balance is hard to obtain. But in the end "Nothing worth doing is easy" (I don't remember who said that first).

Greg,

Well, there are two main reasons I'm doing this.

1. Implementing the correct promotion rule that fairy-max isn't able to do (i.e. promoting to a minor on 8th rank, also a rook at 9th rank and also a major piece (queen,griffin,aanca, archbishop,chancellor),at 10th rank)..

2. Adding the fool (imitator) that mimics the last move of the opponent.

Not sure how to do those now but I got hints for the second from the mimotaur implementation.

Technical question:

Where is the main and the .prj file? Both would help! I need the main to be able to test my creations.

Thanks, Greg

I'll attempt to implement apothecary in chessV, hope to succeed.

Hello again Greg,

I contemplating writing code for my upcomming (still in testing phase) apothecary games, but I see the way movement is implemented, that there is no easy way of implementing the aanca and griffin.

The move info contains rank modification, file modification and maximum and minimum number of steps from what I understood. Nothing about a second legged move.

Am I correct? Do I miss something?

Thanks!

Greg,

I just watched an Enep game where the Enep knight has captured with an wazir move, this is not supposed to happen, could you please check?

Thanks, greg for adding Enep!

Apothecary 1 Champions(WAD) vs 3 pawns has finished

Champions wins:116

3 pawns wins:68

draws:16

Champions points:124

3 pawns points:76

Apothecary 1 Wizards (LF) vs 3Pawns has finished

Wizards wins:117

3Pawns wins:68

draws:15

Wizards Points:124.5

3Pawns Points :75.5

Apothecary 2 Camel (LmW) vs 3Pawns has finished

Camels wins:96

3Pawns wins:73

draws:31

Camel Points:111.5

3Pawns Points :88.5

Now the minor pieces vs pawns tests have started. In these tests 1 (and just 1) minor piece is deleted and that side receives an extra pawn in compensation. The opposite side has 2 pawns deleted for a total of 3 pawns for the piece. The first apothecary 2 such test has finished with the following results:

Zebra VS 3 Pawns

Zebra Wins: 101

Pawns Wins:72

Draws:27

Zebra Points :114.5

Pawns Points:85.5

I was personally expecting balance here, so I'm a little surprized.

Apothecary 1 Knights(NmZ) VS Wizards(LF) has finished:

Knights wins:97

Wizard wins:83

draws:20

Knights Points:107

Wizard Points :93

H.G.,

I have made an account on talkchess.com but it did not get activated, I've noticed you are an moderator there, too. Can you help me activate it . It says I have to wait for someone to aprouve, but there has been half a week by now.

Apothecary 2 Elephants(FAmH) vs Camels(LmW)

Elephant wins :97

Camels wins: 81

draws:22

Elephant points:108

Camels Points:92

Apothecary 1 Knights (NmZ) vs Champions (WAD) has finished

Knights wins: 86

Champions wins:96

draws:18

Knights Points :95

Champions Points:105

Wow, thanks! This is what I meant!

On a hex board the knight is an (2,1) leaper, an (m,n) leaper would be an leaper that jumps to all squarez (actually 12-if  n<>m) that can be reached through a hexrook move of m and then a move of n, or first n and then m, as in regular board chess. This is what I meant!

Could you pull together and redo your elaborate analisys. I'm sure you have cool things to say!

The last result is pretty bad as zebras did better against bishops than the stronger camel!

Bishops VS Zebras has finished!

Bishops wins:100

Zebras wins:74

draws:26

Bishops points:113

Zebras points:87

So, are the hex camel and hex zebra color binded?

Beeing on the discussion on color binding I noticed that I don't understand the concept well enough. How do I figure out if a piece is color binded. For square tilling it is easier but for hex is more difficult. For 3D is also a bit more difficult that for squares. I'm mostly interested about (m,n) leapers on a hexagonal board. Are there color binded  twice leapers that are (m1,n1)&(m2,n2)? For example (4,1)&(3,0) is a third board bounded. What about 3D? Can anyone help me with a general math answer?

H.G., Well I meant the difference between the F captures of LF by comparison to the wazir just moves (but  unbounding) of the LmW. It is highly weird that the LF is 0.75 pawns stronger than a LmW,although we are talking different games.

I hope Fergus is reading the gross chess assesment as I believe, too, that the wizard is sensibly stronger than a knight. We'll see how it faces the advanced knight NmZ soon.

I'm quite excited about the last two result of my 2 small apothecary games using Fairy-Max. It seems a normal B bishop is roughly half a pawn stronger than a apothecary 2 camel LmW but a quarter pawn weaker than a Wizard LF . So the wizards colourboundness doesn't seem to affect that much. The difference between LF and LmW should be 0.5 pawns according the H.G.Muller's rule of thumb (mPower=1/2 cPower) but it it's hard to tell. Here it seems a bit more, but there are several factors not considered in this approximation. The point is that the wizard's colourboundness is not that relevant. That's why I gave the camel and just move wazir power after all, and it doesn't seem to suffice.

Apothecary 1 Bishops VS Wizards has finished

Bishops wins:82

Wizard wins :102

draws:16

Bishops points:90

Wizards points:110

Ok, thanks!

And the queen in small apothecary 2!

I've noticed somthing odd with my diagrams for small apothecary 1 chess (the ones on my computer that use the javascript). The griffin, and griffin only shows grey pseudo-check moves. This can't be right and needs fixing.

Hello,

After toying a bit with fairy-max, chessV, and sjaak 2, I have decided to write my own c++ code that will support many chess variants. I am aware of the chess programming wiki but I am also aware of experienced chess programmers roaming this website, so I hope for interactive Q&A in the limit of possibilities for people like H.G.Muller, Greg Strong or others. The main purpose is though that those games will play my own very large board variants, so the program will be optimized for that.

Thanks for all your contributions.

Some technical stuff:

The program will be written in c++ with lots of polymorphism and late binding in the desire for flexibility. It is also supposed to be fast so it is really difficult to program that all. The AI will use machine learning in the way DEEP PINK works, as I took inspiration from there. All this I deem it doable but it is difficult as this is my first chess variants program. The AI is meant to be strong.

I also need help for technical stuff like interfacing with WinBoard, but everything in their own time.

Thanks for all your help!

All your work the passed weeks with the diagrams is great, but I must ask:

1.Do they support hexagonall mappings?

2.Do they suport Xiangqi style rivers?

I think the short answer to both questions is no. Any hope for these facilities soon?

Apothecary 2 Knights VS Zebras has finished;

Knights wins:90

Zebras wins:72

Draws:38

Knights Points:109

Zebras Points:91

Apothecary 1 experiment bishops vs knights has finished.

Bishops wins:76

Knights wins:101

draws :23

Bishops Points:87.5

Knights Points :112.5

Apothecary 2 experiment Knights VS Camels has finished

Knights wins:84

Camels wins :80

Draws:36

Knights Points:102

Camels Points:98

Apothecary 2 Bishops VS Elephants has finished;

Bishops wins:93

Elephant wins:75

draws: 32

Bishops points:109

Elephant points:91

Yes, it was that knight, the one with the four threeper enhancements. The fact here is that the knights enhancement is almost useless as a knight can go (3,3) in 2 moves anyway (NmG in Betza notation). And also it's too long. The point of this enhancement was not to have the same enhancement like in omega chess but I guess that one was the most interesting enhancement. Bishop pair matters of course. But this is the proper exmperiment I think as it is close to the real game (where you start with bishops on oposite colors). I think the elephant (who won versus the knight) would be closer to the bishop. I doubt any rock-paper scisors effects are in place in those 2 games. The elephant enhacement has a double role, it is long (not long enough to jump over board) and is unbounding.

Thanks for your help, H.G.

Bishops VS Knights

Bishops wins :102

draws  :27

Knights wins :71

Bishops Points:115.5

Knights Points:84.5

Elephants Vs Zebras

Elephants wins :106

draws :39

Zebras wins :55

Elephants points:125.5

Zebras points:74.5

Camels VS Zebras

Camels wins:96

draws:22

Zebras wins:82

Camel Points:107

Zebras Points:93

My initial guess of 30 centipawns for the difference between an elephant and a knight was surprisingly close!

Elephnats vs Knights:

Elephants wins:97

Draws:30

Knights wins:73

Elephant Points:112

Knights Points:88

So, now we are on minor pieces contests. In apothecary 2 camels vs zebras has started. This is set up by replacing in the initial setup the camel with a zebra for a player and vice-versa for the other. Zebras vs Elephants is next. This will be set up by replacing an elephant with a zebra an deleting the other elephant and for the other player just deleting the zebra. No other pieces are deleted for the sake of consistence. In apothecary 2, where the initial setup has 2 of each minor pieces (say bishops vs elephants) one player gets deleted one set of minors where the other gets deleted the other set of minors. This is also what always happens in apothecary 1.

Results for camels vs zebras and elephants vs knights coming soon.

Queens VS Marshalls has finished again with what I consider a bit of exagerated results.

Queens wins:129

Marshall wins:54

draws:17

Queens points:137.5

Marshall points:62.5

The queens vs griffins experiment has finished yielding a bit of a surprising result (see below). The difference is 2 pawns (1 for each pair of opposite pieces), larger than I expected.

Queens wins:129

Griffins wins :53

Draws:18

Queens points:138

Griffins points:62

H.G.,

I'd like to confess something, I wanted to be a bit profane on Fairy-Max, as it plays both apothecary games so open. But after trying to play myself against myself on the diagrams (I'm blundering later now) I've noticed that with so many leapers these games are pretty open themselves. So pushing pawns and closing the game may not work. This is a weakness of both apothecary games I have to think about in the future.

Moreover, I'm now in a position to defend apothecary 2 (or small apothecary 2 as is it's real name- but as of now they are the only apothecary games, simple apothecary works) against your criticism that the game is too long (and maybe stale as a result). Introducing the minor pieces enriches the middlegame a lot and even if more often than not the minor pieces get exchanced in the middle game (camels in the endgame are very rare, zebras even more so) the damage to pawn structure and the more weird endgame pieces combinations make up for the increased lenght. It's all an opinion of course.

H.G.,

I'm watching some queens vs griffins matches and I remembered what you've said about most of the power of the pieces coming from empty board mobility (Griffin mobility=27/25 Queen mobility). I think we are for an exception here as the griffin has a slightly higher empty board mobility than the queen but in the early game gets hindered much more easily by having only four squares nearby. The queen also has 3 forward direction as opposed to two, for what that worths. From what I'm seeing the queen is roughly half a pawn above the griffin in apothecary 1 (as is above the marshall in apothecary 2, nice to know for different armies maybe). Larger boards will probably provide even more interesting encounters between the 2.

Weakly related: An even weirder case of fluctuations along a game of ratios of pieces, I think is rook vs nightrider. As the NN is clearly superior in the early game the R is superior due to its traits in the late game.