Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


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

Ratings & Comments

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Apothecary Chess-Modern. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Feb 1, 2020 11:44 AM UTC:

I hope you guys enjoy the new version of this game. For now, the rules enforcing and move displaying are an ongoing job, for me to do. After that I hope to see you soon!...


Apothecary Chess-Classic. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Feb 1, 2020 11:44 AM UTC:

I hope you guys enjoy the new version of this game. For now, the rules enforcing and move displaying are an ongoing job, for me to do. After that I hope to see you soon!...


Red Fool Chess. Standard Chess, but with two extra rows and one semi autonomous piece, the Red Fool.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 10:55 PM UTC:

To clarify all that - this is a multi-move game.  The player that attacks the Red Fool then gets a second move in which he must move it according to these criteria (assuming it has a legal move.)


💡📝Amy Johnson wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 09:07 PM UTC:

the RF will not move to nor will it attack on any square that is defended by any white or black piece

there is a hierarchy to its movements - empty, undefended square first (choice of player who threatened it), or attack on the lowest value piece that is undefended (in case of more than one of equal low value, choice of player who threatened the RF during his normal turn move)


💡📝Amy Johnson wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 09:05 PM UTC:

any color piece may threaten the RF and force it to move


💡📝Amy Johnson wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 09:04 PM UTC:

yes. the RF must move if threatened, unless it has no possible move.


💡📝Amy Johnson wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 09:03 PM UTC:

yes, if the players move threatens the RF, then the RF moves and that player has a choice of the RF's limited movement options


💡📝Amy Johnson wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 09:02 PM UTC:

The RF can only move if threatened.  It can not move to defended square.  It will always move to an empty undefended square first (choice of player who threatened it), if it can't do that it will attack the player who threatened it with her choice of lowest value pieces.  If the Fool has no move, it does not move  -it just blocks until either side's move threatens it.  The player who threatens has the only choice of the limited moves available to the RF.


Ben Reiniger wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 08:00 PM UTC:

I've just realized I don't actually know when the red fool moves from the text.  I'd assume it doesn't have its own turn, but instead acts as a piece that one of the players can move during their turn?  Must it be moved if it is attacked, and (especially if so) does the player get to move the RF in addition to or just instead of one of their own pieces?  Does "attacked" depend on whose turn it is (i.e., if the RF is attacked only by a black piece, can black move the RF)?

I still don't completely understand "safe"/"either empty or undefended": is there a priority among the three options (an empty and unthreatened square, an empty but threatened square, and an occupied but unthreatened square)?  I guess here "threatened" doesn't depend on piece colors?


Apothecary Chess-Classic. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Aurelian Florea wrote on Thu, Jan 30, 2020 08:20 AM UTC:

@The Editors

These days I had tried to finalize the rules of my 2 apothecary games.

This should be the final version of this article pending review.


Apothecary Chess-Modern. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Aurelian Florea wrote on Thu, Jan 30, 2020 08:10 AM UTC:

@The Editors

These days I had tried to finalize the rules of my 2 apothecary games.

This should be the final version of this article pending review.


Red Fool Chess. Standard Chess, but with two extra rows and one semi autonomous piece, the Red Fool.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Ben Reiniger wrote on Wed, Jan 29, 2020 10:08 PM UTC:

Aha, while the Editor's "edit contents" link has appended the uniqid to bypass cache issues, the Author's "edit the contents" link does not.  While I would prefer to have a better solution to cache issues, maybe for now we should also add a uniqid to the Author links.

If I get some time tonight, I'll redo my edits to this page.  (I see the board is back already, at least.)


Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jan 28, 2020 10:29 PM UTC:

And my edit, adding the board graphic is now gone as well, for the second time.

 


Ben Reiniger wrote on Tue, Jan 28, 2020 08:05 PM UTC:

Erm, now my edit is gone.  Did you happen to try to further edit, and get the cached editor fields pulled up?


💡📝Amy Johnson wrote on Tue, Jan 28, 2020 07:38 PM UTC:

Safe squares for the Fool to move to are either empty or undefended.  I wrote a complete update and rewrite of this page, but my changes were not saved.  Thank you for editing it. A draw game will only occur when the Fool actually delivers the check.


Ben Reiniger wrote on Tue, Jan 28, 2020 07:27 PM UTC:

@Amy, I've reduced the repetition of material in each section, and some other light editing.  Please check that it reads alright to you.

Does the RF-checkmate mean any checkmate in which the RF takes some part, or must the RF be delivering check?  What about when the RF "contributes" but is redundant (other pieces cover its attack squares)?  (Maybe these questions don't actually matter, given the RF's restrictions; I haven't thought about any specific position yet.)

You say the RF prioritizes "safe" squares, but from the subsequent discussion it sounds like perhaps you meant "empty"?


Metamachy. Large game with a variety of regular fairy pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
📝H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jan 24, 2020 03:46 PM UTC:

@Kevin: Human play is far from perfect, even for GMs. Misconceptions about piece values is just one of the contributions to imperfection. So, yes, GMs can have opinions, and the can afford these opinions to be wrong and still be at the top, because their competitors have their flaws too.

If the value of pieces depended on the general level of play, they would be meaningless concepts. We don't teach beginning chessplayers other piece values as those that GMs are using. Only if a player has a misconception applying to a specific piece, such as that knights are best moved to the board corners and should stay there, it can affect the value this piece has for them.


dax00 wrote on Fri, Jan 24, 2020 03:00 AM UTC:

It's nice to hear different opinions. Perhaps I am somewhat biased due to the demolition work my Gryphon has done in the tournament game.


Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Jan 24, 2020 02:23 AM UTC:

I also do not subscribe to formula.  I've been here long enough to watch at least a half-dozen well-thought-out systems be disproven.  The killer is that, not only has it not worked for pieces (e.g., the Archbishop is significantly stronger than anticipated), but also because it depends on the entire army (e.g., the individual pieces of the Nutty Knights aren't that strong, but together, they are totally overpowering.)

Regarding Griffon vs. Queen.  I am firmly in the camp that the Queen is better.  The case has been made that the larger board favors the Griffon - which is true to a point - but the difference is microscopic.  The Griffon suffers more in the corner or the edge, especially if blocked at the key points.  The larger the board, the fewer squares are edges/corners.  But the difference is small and the Queen and Griffon are active, attacking pieces that aren't likely to be there anyway.  Far more important is the fact that, while the Griffon has 8 rays, they emerge from 4 choke points where they can be blocked.  This limits mobility measurably.  Additionally, the Queen can slide along all 8 rays while continuing to attack the ray.  The Griffon cannot do this at all.  If it attacks even files, and makes a file-move, it now attacks odd files.  Same with ranks.  The result is that the Queen can triangulate - if it wants to attack a square, and is threatened and forced to move, it has several options of other squares to relocate to while still attacking the desired square.  The Griffon has a much harder time with this - for squares outside short range there is no option at all.  Also, it has problems with asymmetry.  One Griffon can attack another and the other may not be able to attack back because they follow different paths.  These sorts of anomolies do weaken peaces to some extent.  FInally, a Queen cannot be attacked by a King because it attacks all adjacent squares.  The Griffon can be approached.

All that said, the Griffon has some neat capabilities.  In particular, in the endgame, the ability to attack two files (or ranks) and trap the king between them is pretty good.  A Griffon plus a Rook is deadly.  Get the King betwen the Griffon's forks and then move the rook in between and that is checkmate, even if the King is in the middle of the board!  (When is the King ever checkmated in the middle of the board?)  So maybe, just maybe, a Griffon can be better in the very endgame, but I'm not even sure that is clear.  (King + Queen vs. King is much easier to carry out than King + Griffon vs. King, which is kinda tricky although still possible.)

I don't know the difference in value - a pawn sounds like a good starting point - but there is no doubt I will trade a Griffon for a Queen in even trade.


Kevin Pacey wrote on Fri, Jan 24, 2020 01:05 AM UTC:

By coincidence or not, H.G., that's about 87% of a queen (on 8x8, at least) which is in line with the 85% ratio offered by the old ZoG article (for 8x8), as well as the 88% (if I read right) offered up by the Betza article. I didn't check everything he's ever written so as to see if Betza thought the ratio applied on all board sizes, though. Last night my own quick sketchy re-calculations came up with a 90% ratio for on 12x12 (at least), not too different, but I would be less confident if not comparing it to ZoG and Betza's percentage figures.

One thing calculations based on theory do have the advantage of is offering up something quick, if computer analysis has yet to be done due to awkwardness of board size, for example. Players can always take calculated (or even computer-generated) piece values with a grain of salt, and/or treat them as ballpark figures, everyone should understand that, at least for CVs that aren't much explored. There is also the question of exact board size/shape being tested, exact armies used in a starting setup being tested (and the exact squares the pieces start on, as Chess960 might even show). Not only that, but the strength of an engine being used for testing, IMHO.

Dax00 didn't so far offer up a way to numerically estimate the value of a piece like the Gryphon (on 8x8, or 12x12), but rather something that looked like opinion to me. That's fine, if a number can then be offered up as at least a guestimate based on it (unless one prefers to keep it secret). Aurelian has done a kind of calculation already, based on some sort of premise(s), so it seems for 12x12 he agrees with the conclusion that it's better than a queen for that board size - what his exact number for it could be, I don't know.

P.S.: Even the best human chess players still cannot agree on even the exact values chess pieces should have, computers be damned. The current world chess champion values a bishop slightly more than a knight on average, as is tradition for a long time. I may be an exception, in that I think a knight is almost fully equal to a B - and in my days as a young man I reached 2400 USCF chess rating, and nearly 2300 FIDE (later 2400 Canadian rating, in my early 50s). Some would say I'm still pretty weak, since I blunder badly now and then. :)


📝H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Jan 23, 2020 05:32 PM UTC:

@Dax00: I agree completely that calculatory methods for piece values are usually no good. They qualfy as 'fact-free science'. The known values of the six orthodox pieces can be reproduced by infinitely many numerological recipes, which can be designed to give arbitrary values for any fairy piece.

I therefore do always determine piece values in an empirical way, by having a computer program play games in which the pieces are pitted against a combination of pieces of known value, and measure their performance. Through such measurements the Gryphon turned out to be worth about 8.3 on 8x8 (IIRC), on a scale where Q=9.5.

 


Aurelian Florea wrote on Thu, Jan 23, 2020 10:24 AM UTC:

In the early versions of apothecary chess I have done these caculations. A Griffin is a pawn weaker than the quenn on a 10x10.About the same results I got for a marshall.  But increased board helps the griffin! Dax is correct!


Kevin Pacey wrote on Thu, Jan 23, 2020 07:02 AM UTC:

It seems upon re-checking, I made an error in my calculations for the Eagle's value, then reinforced that by reading Betza's article the wrong way. For now I'll go back and use a value based on the old ZoG article's exact ratio that's found between a gryphon (Eagle, here) and a queen, if only for the sake of providing a quick and dirty numerical estimate, even though it may prove to be too low later on (with much experience). The value of bent riders is something I hadn't tried to calculate on my own before.

P.S.: If I am now reading the Betza article right, he values a gryphon (i.e. Eagle) as worth 88% of a queen, which is almost exactly the value that the old ZoG article implies it has.


dax00 wrote on Thu, Jan 23, 2020 04:34 AM UTC:

Where the Queen provides distributed pressure, the Gryphon provides concentrated pressure. Against reasonable play, where you expect your opponent to try to make his pieces work together (reasonable to assume pieces are relatively close together), I assert that the Gryphon is a better piece for pressuring the opponent overall. Even when kicked away, it can often still maintain distant defense. And the forking potential is massive.

I was never one to subscribe to a calculatory method of evaluating piece values, rather in favor of practical analysis through actual play. 

Even if I were to concede that a Gryphon is about a pawn less in worth than a Queen on an 8×8 board (which I do not), it makes sense that the Gryphon's initial diagonal move would mitigate its strength more so on the smaller board than on the 12×12 board of Metamachy, so for this game its value should be at least comparable if not superior.


Kevin Pacey wrote on Thu, Jan 23, 2020 04:08 AM UTC:

Before finalizing my own tentative estimate for the value of the Eagle (quite a bit less than a queen), I read Ralph Betza's article on Bent Riders, in the Piece Articles section of this website. If I understood his writings right, I'd already arrived at a similar value to what his would be for the Gryphon (what is called the Eagle in this game), even though I used a sketchier form of calculation. However, Betza worked out his theories for piece values before people began to try to estimate fairy piece values with the aid of computers.

P.S.: In the Piece Articles section, too, the Article 'Who is Who on Eight by Eight' puts ZoG's value for a Gryphon only about a chess pawn's worth less than a queen, so quite a difference in value, although those are old ZoG values that need to be taken with a grain of salt in many cases.


25 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.