Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Oct 12, 2018 05:13 PM UTC:
There could be a solution but first remember the the state space of the possible solutions is linked to the choosing of the pieces out of a small possible set, is it is probably non-neglijable likely to plainly not be able to succeed as the demands ar pretty tight.
I agree that absolutely perfect balance between all combinations of armies could be very difficult, but I also think it's not necessary. Even if they are not balanced enough for computer vs. computer matches to come out exactly even, so long as the goal is to make a game good for humans I think we absolutely can get sufficiently balanced armies.
My take from cwda is not about balance but aboutsomething i'd call "dinamic balance" as each army seems to "mean" something.
It is unfortunate that Betza hasn't been heard from in nearly 15 years now and may not even be alive. But he has written a lot of content on this site about piece values, his struggles to determine them, and his goals for Chess with Different Armies, and his previous failed attempt at it. I believe we know enough from these writings to feel confident that an even balance between armies was THE primary goal and, if he were here, he would be continuing to work toward it.
Yes, each army does have a unique "flavor" that absolutely should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. But making the BD's leap a lame leap is a very, very tiny change that doesn't change the flavor at all, at least in my opinion. I can't really see an argument against this change unless one believes that it is Betza's game and only he can update it and, consequently, if he's dead we are stuck with it forever.
The fact is we have learned a lot since this game was made and Betza was unfortunately wrong about some things. The Archbishop is worth a lot more than he thought as just one example. If he had known what we know now, he would have made different decisions. There's a page here somewhere where he talks about the Short Rook and trying to decide what the range should be and how he used computer vs. computer test matches to help validate the decisions exactly as we are doing.
The Musketeer Chess approach is problematic. For one thing, you are taking about a radical change that makes a completely different game. You no longer have armies with themes that "mean" something as you put it. And, we have determined that the strength of an army depends heavily on the specific combination of pieces, not just the individual pieces. If you want to make such a game, I would encourage it and I would try to help if you wanted, but I don't see this as a valid approach to rescuing CwDA.
I agree that absolutely perfect balance between all combinations of armies could be very difficult, but I also think it's not necessary. Even if they are not balanced enough for computer vs. computer matches to come out exactly even, so long as the goal is to make a game good for humans I think we absolutely can get sufficiently balanced armies.
It is unfortunate that Betza hasn't been heard from in nearly 15 years now and may not even be alive. But he has written a lot of content on this site about piece values, his struggles to determine them, and his goals for Chess with Different Armies, and his previous failed attempt at it. I believe we know enough from these writings to feel confident that an even balance between armies was THE primary goal and, if he were here, he would be continuing to work toward it.
Yes, each army does have a unique "flavor" that absolutely should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. But making the BD's leap a lame leap is a very, very tiny change that doesn't change the flavor at all, at least in my opinion. I can't really see an argument against this change unless one believes that it is Betza's game and only he can update it and, consequently, if he's dead we are stuck with it forever.
The fact is we have learned a lot since this game was made and Betza was unfortunately wrong about some things. The Archbishop is worth a lot more than he thought as just one example. If he had known what we know now, he would have made different decisions. There's a page here somewhere where he talks about the Short Rook and trying to decide what the range should be and how he used computer vs. computer test matches to help validate the decisions exactly as we are doing.
The Musketeer Chess approach is problematic. For one thing, you are taking about a radical change that makes a completely different game. You no longer have armies with themes that "mean" something as you put it. And, we have determined that the strength of an army depends heavily on the specific combination of pieces, not just the individual pieces. If you want to make such a game, I would encourage it and I would try to help if you wanted, but I don't see this as a valid approach to rescuing CwDA.