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 Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
M Winther wrote on Sat, Apr 22, 2006 11:35 AM UTC:
As an ambitious CV developer I would like to hear some judgements on big-board variants, i.e. which ones you prefer and why. For instance, how about Omega Chess? (If you want a better graphics, you can download it here (zipped)). And how about Grand Chess, which is rather popular? (There is also a zrf of this CV, as a variant in 'Fairy Chess'on the Zillions CD). The reason why I implemented my own big-board chess, Mastodon Chess (updated yesterday), was that I wanted a variant where tactics was toned town. I fear that one tends to develop variants that suit one's own preferences too much.

Andy Thomas wrote on Sat, Apr 22, 2006 04:37 PM UTC:
at a certain point with large boards and many pieces, a variant should
probably have multiple moves per side at a time, instead of 1 move per
side...

or the pieces should be really powerful...

if you have a large board with single-moves and weak pieces, time can
become a factor... some people might think it takes too long to play

so i would imagine that, when designing the 'ideal' large board chess
variant each of us attempts to factor these considerations in

board size
piece power
moves per side
time

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Sun, Apr 23, 2006 03:42 PM UTC:
Hi Mats! From large chess variants I prefer Capablanca chess variation with good initial setup. For example, Gothic chess or Embassy chess. The reason is that for ordinary chess player it is quite easy to remember moves of chancellor and archbishop and these new pieces add interesting tactical and strategic elements to the game.

M Winther wrote on Sun, Apr 23, 2006 03:58 PM UTC:
Andreas, thanks for this information. What surprises me is that there exist
no zrf of these two variants although they are easy to implement.

Mats

Derek Nalls wrote on Sun, Apr 23, 2006 04:24 PM UTC:
SMIRF
http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html

This is currently the strongest program available that is free and
fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants.  It loads
Embassy Chess (MBC) and several other games automatically at the push of
a button.  Gothic Chess, having a US patent, requires payment.

Allegedly, the best opening setup is found in this game:

Optimized Chess 8H x 10W
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/opti/

Of course, there are many ways to approach 'big-board CV's'.

M Winther wrote on Sun, Apr 23, 2006 06:55 PM UTC:
Derek, thanks for those links, I will try it out. But meanwhile I had already created a zrf for 'Teutonic Chess' and 'Embassy Chess'. If you want to try Gothic Chess you only need to change positions between Chancellor and Archbishop in the initial position of Teutonic Chess (right-click). It can be downloaded here. (zipped). Maybe those pieces invented by Capa are usable, after all.

Mats

M Winther wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2006 05:47 AM UTC:
I realized today that Mr Duniho implemented Embassy Chess already (Jan 2006), and other large board variants in LargeChess. But in his Embassy Chess there is a bug where the king only jumps two steps when castling on the queen's wing (should be three steps). I've reported it to him.

(However, my implementation has an advantage, namely that the engine more readily castles, thanks to tweaking, but I will not publish this zrf on this site because it is redundant.)

M Winther wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2006 04:26 PM UTC:
Can't get SMIRF to work because there is a dll missing.

Anyway, it's possible to get Zillions to play well too, if one applies some tweaking so that it moves the centre pawns in the opening instead of hopping about with the light pieces, and also, to persuade it to castle. I've made those tweakings today in the 8x10 variants, downloadable here. Maybe I'll publish this after all, because it plays somewhat better than earlier publications.

I am thinking of implementing Hans Ã…berg's Capablanca variant, too, because it implies an improvement of the castle rules.

Derek Nalls wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2006 05:04 PM UTC:
'Can't get SMIRF to work because there is a dll missing.'
____________________________________________________

Please notify the developer of SMIRF, Reinhard Scharnagl.
He really cares about correcting flaws.

Meanwhile ...

1.  Try to run the program again.
[Note-  It will not run.]

2.  Write down the name of the missing file when the error message
pops-up.

3.  Download the missing file for free from any of several web sites that
provide this service.

4.  Repeat process until all missing files are retrieved and the program
runs.

Dependencies are required, supporting files.

This is a list of dependencies for 'SmirfGUI.exe'-

activeds.dll
adsldpc.dll
advapi32.dll
apphelp.dll
borlndmm.dll
cabinet.dll
cc3270mt.dll
comctl32.dll
comdlg32.dll
crypt32.dll
dbghelp.dll
dbrtl100.bpl
dnsapi.dll
gdi32.dll
imagehlp.dll
kernel32.dll
lz32.dll
mlang.dll
mpr.dll
msasn1.dll
msi.dll
msimg32.dll
msvcrt.dll
netapi32.dll
netrap.dll
ntdll.dll
ntdsapi.dll
ole32.dll
oleacc.dll
oleaut32.dll
oledlg.dll
rpcrt4.dll
rtl100.bpl
samlib.dll
secur32.dll
setupapi.dll
sfc.dll
sfcfiles.dll	
shell32.dll
shlwapi.dll
user32.dll
userenv.dll
vcl100.bpl	
vcldb100.bpl
version.dll
w32topl.dll
winmm.dll
winspool.drv
wintrust.dll
wldap32.dll
ws2_32.dll
ws2help.dll
wsock32.dll

The list of dependencies for 'SmirfEngine.dll' is unneeded since all of
those files are already included in the first list.

Reinhard Scharnagl wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2006 06:14 PM UTC:
Hi Mats! Since some week SMIRF's development environment has been changed
from Borland C++ Builder 6 to Borland Developer Studio 2006 - and it still
is beta. Thus it easily could happen, that not everything is as it should
be. Nevertheless any bad experiences there not have been reported yet
beside of your missed DLL. It would be helping to learn about that DLL's
name. Thank you!
P.S.: please note your OS version, too. Thank you.
P.P.S.: there is a new setup now including the file 'borlndmm.dll'.

M Winther wrote on Tue, Apr 25, 2006 09:40 AM UTC:
>This is currently the strongest program available that is free and
>fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants.


You must be pulling my leg. SMIRF immediately loses piece always, and I cannot set playing time to higher values.

Reinhard Scharnagl wrote on Tue, Apr 25, 2006 10:12 AM UTC:
Mats, happy to see, that SMIRF is running now. But it seems, as if you have
installed it into an existing folder containing outdated *.INI files. So
unistall SMIRF, delete that folder and install again. Then you should be
able to set bigger timings, too. Regards, Reinhard.

M Winther wrote on Fri, Apr 28, 2006 07:23 AM UTC:
Has somebody managed to get SMIRF to function under Win98SE? It runs, but
plays like a fool, and one cannot change time-setting. I've deinstalled,
removed old ini-files, an reinstalled. But it doesn't work.

Mats

Reinhard Scharnagl wrote on Fri, Apr 28, 2006 08:22 AM UTC:
Hi Mats, the Help -> About should show: Version 1.3.4 - 0302, and User:
Donationware Version - donate ! Otherwise you are starting an outdated
version, e.g. within an old second SMIRF folder. Reinhard.

http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html 

P.S.: SMIRF does not play like a fool. But it is answering in 0 seconds,
if there is no valid key. The Donationware has its permanent key included.

M Winther wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 09:31 AM UTC:
at a certain point with large boards and many pieces, a variant should probably have multiple moves per side at a time, instead of 1 move per side...(Andy)

Double-move variants might be quite functional, at least if the double-move is constituted by a pawn move followed by a piece move. I've implemented this on an 8x8 board with regular pieces. This idea should be applicable on big boards, and with other pieces, too. There exist two variants of Twinmove Chess (zrf). In one variant pawn moves are compelled, until there exist no more pawn moves, when the pieces can continue moving without being preceded by a pawn move. In the other variant the player may abstain from the pawn move, and instead move a piece, but then he has lost his double-move.

Incidentally, I am amazed how relatively easy it is to create fully practicable chess variants. I didn't know this before. This occupation can be viewed almost as an art form. I now better understand why there exist chess variant societies, chess variant journals, and this very site. Actually, it reminds me of medieval alchemy, an activity that mixed rational 'scientific' content with imaginative creations. It is something about this mixture which is quite compelling. -- Mats

M Winther wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 10:24 AM UTC:
(Just uploaded a little improvement on my Twinmove Chess.)

Orth Vrek wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 04:24 PM UTC:
Hello to all,

I am wondering if here at non extreme competition site some answer is
given. Stirred recently the BrainKing site because of claim? of some to
have seen Fischer on large chess variant of Gothical Chess? Does know
anyone about this? Game found here showing

http://www.gothicchesslive.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=750

Can other say if Fischer is playing the one here? Sorry my Englisch is
not
the better!

Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 05:04 PM UTC:
Gentlemen, let me stick an oar into these murky waters. My first question
is: what do you mean by 'big board'? If you accept FIDE as the standard,
then anything above 8x8 is 'big'. I would argue against that and the
ideas that you need really powerful pieces, or even many pieces, and more
than 1 move per turn. (At least up to, say 25x25 ;-) At 19x19, Go does
quite well with merely putting non-moving pieces on the board one at a
time. I've worked at 'large' sized boards (10x8, 10x10, 9x21, 16x16)
and, now that I'm looking at it, the general trend is the larger the
board, the fewer the pieces, and the ranges in 'linear' distance often
decrease, but that's because the 9x21 is conceptually also 3x3x3x7 and
the 16x16 is similarly also 4x4x4x4, so you can't go very far in any one
'direction'. Okay, you might think that last bit is all bs, but Go still
elegantly demonstrates you don't need powerful pieces for a large board.
And the 9x21 game (189 cells) is a chancellor chess variant using only the
standard 9 pieces and pawns per side of chancellor chess. The 16x16 game
(256) uses only the standard 8 pieces and pawns of FIDE per side. 
Andy Thomas has made some excellent points. I think he's right in all of
them. I just need to know what size we're talking about, and am curious
about the line between chess and wargames, like say 'Axis and Allies'. I
would recommend HG Wells book 'Little Wars' as an excellent example of
what is clearly over the line. (It's also got great photos.)

Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 05:34 PM UTC:
I doubt that there is much value in discussing GO in relation to chess
variants large or small. There are many large chess variants with a
variety of 'moving pieces' and Kings.  GO is simply not a chess variant.
 But, perhaps Joe is being sarcastic?

In regard to his statement that 'the general trend is the larger the
board, the fewer the pieces, and the ranges in 'linear' distance often
decrease' ... that certainly seems opposite of what I've seen.  But,
subtle jokes and sarcasm are plenty in the comments these days, so,
perhaps Joe is just having some fun here.

Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 06:02 PM UTC:
Hey, Gary! Agreed Go is not a chess variant. It is at once much simpler and
more complex than chess. I was using it as an example of a 'large' board
game that has about the simplest, least powerful pieces possible. They
just exist, they don't even move. The game is played 1 stone at a time.
For those of us who are not experts, there isn't even a clearly defined
end to the game. But it is an awesome game, and conceptually much simpler
than chess. On a big board. Consider it a point in game-space, that
nebulous conceptual area where all games reside, just outside a boundary
of chess. It's like 'Little Wars' in that respect, using much of the
trappings of chess-like games, but being clearly outside the boundary. So
we can define 'chess' by triangulation, if you like, or not, if not.
As to my statement about the size & range trend, it was in strict reference to my
designs. I apologize for not making that clear. Specifically, with
reference to Hyperchess, Walkers and Jumpers, and my large shatranj
variants, the statement is [reasonably] true. BTW, I hope you like the new
piece designs for Grand Shatranj, Gary. 
I will admit to being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in my whole approach to
this topic, though. Just because they're attacking my whole design
philosophy of minimalism and simplicity is not reason enough to get all
exercised. ;-)
Enjoy. Joe

Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 10:28 PM UTC:
Joe:  Thanks for the elaboration.  It clarifies things quite a bit.  As for
GO, I am familiar with it and am currently playing a game of it over the
internet.  But still, I would not consider the GO stones as chess pieces
any more than I would consider the 'X' and 'O' of tic-tac-toe to be
pieces.  The fact that GO pieces work well on a 19 x 19 board has no
signifigance to chess pieces.  I am inclined to agree with the opinion
that larger boards can more easily accomodate pieces with greater
mobility... and that multi-move turns are more at home on such boards...
as are larger numbers of different piece types.

Jeremy Good wrote on Mon, May 1, 2006 12:52 AM UTC:
Hi, Joe and Gary. I'm a huge fan of both of you and your chess variant
contributions. There is a chess / go combo that really has me fascinated
and I'm wondering whether either of you have checked it out. It's called
Gess.

http://www.chessvariants.com/crossover.dir/gess.html

Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, May 1, 2006 01:14 AM UTC:
Hi, Gary. Okay, you said: 'I am inclined to agree with the opinion
that larger boards can more easily accomodate pieces with greater
mobility... and that multi-move turns are more at home on such boards...
as are larger numbers of different piece types.' Me, too. I just felt
that two things were being fluffed over. One is how big 'big' is; and
the other has to do with designing increasing numbers of pieces and powers
as you increase board size. I personally feel 8x8 is small; but I don't
agree that larger boards mean more pieces. I think an often more elegant
solution is to use a few pieces on a large board. This allows the workings
of the pieces and the board to stand out more clearly. This is, of course,
personal preference only. 
Where I differ from you is in 2 other statements: 'But still, I would not
consider the GO stones as chess pieces any more than I would consider the
'X' and 'O' of tic-tac-toe to be pieces' and 'The fact that GO
pieces work well on a 19 x 19 board has no signifigance to chess pieces.'
Those two statements go right to the foundation of my design philosophy.
When I first decided to design games seriously, I thought about what any
game was, how to look at it, and where I could stake out a unique
position. I look at a game as (almost always) having 3 components, pieces,
rules and board. Go stones, X's and O's, chessmen, they're all the same
in this view, the game pieces. The difference is in the rules: the 1st two
games' play involves placing the pieces on the board in an advantageous
way; chess already has the pieces on the board, play involves moving the
pieces advantageously. 
The above is a gross simplification, but this post is already long. I'll
finish by suggesting that Go pieces are only a shift from wazirs and
ferzes. In conceptual space, Go is fairly close to one 'side' of chess,
and  'Little Wars' or Axis and Allies are roughly on the other side of
chess, fairly close, along the complexity line. Tic-tac-toe is on the
other side of Go from chess and the other games along that complexity
line. Enjoy. Joe

Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, May 1, 2006 01:40 AM UTC:
Hey, Jeremy - yes I have looked at Gess, and I think it's an excellent
idea that hurts my head. Simple, brilliant, and leading to possibly
mind-boggling complexity. I like it and I'm afraid to play it. I see LL
Smith wrote a zillions implementation for it; I'd recommend checking it
out. Michael Howe mentioned being interested a year ago... maybe someone
is now. I suspect it's easily as much a game of pattern recognition as it
is a game of chess. 
ps: if you like my games, you're easily impressed - admittedly, I like
'em, but everyone who knows me knows I'm easily impressed - enjoy ;-)
pps: Gess is a great example of an 18x18 with delightfully simple pieces
and rules. I'm almost tempted to play it.

Gary Gifford wrote on Mon, May 1, 2006 04:33 PM UTC:
Jeremy: Thanks for the game compliments for Joe and me.  Much appreciated. 
On your other note: I looked briefly at Gess, and noticed that those stones
move and that I will need to revisit the rules to get a better feel for
that game.

In regard to the other conversation (with Joe), Joe stated, 'I look at a
game as (almost always) having 3 components, pieces, rules and board. Go
stones, X's and O's, chessmen, they're all the same in this view, the
game pieces. The difference is in the rules: the 1st two
games' play involves placing the pieces on the board in an advantageous
way; chess already has the pieces on the board, play involves moving the
pieces advantageously.'

Response: But GO stones, X's, and O's, unlike chess pieces, lack
mobility once placed... it is the 'zero-mobility' that is of interest
here.

My point was simply that large boards are a good home for long-range
pieces and more types of pieces.  Saying that this is not the case by
using GO for comparision is where I disagree, simply because GO (as it has
existed for 4,000 years) is simply not a Chess-like game.  The fact that
pieces do not move is very important here.

So I am more inclined to look at Turkish Great Chess from the 1700's,
Freeling's Grand Chess, Trice's Gothic Chess, etc. when discussing Big
Board CVs.  And though GO uses a big board, it still is not a CV.  On a
related note, I am playing a game of Duke of Rutland.  It is a large
variant with conventional pieces and one excpetion piece (moves like a
Rook or King) ... to me that board's size is almost crying for more
mowerful pieces and a few different piece types.  To replace existing
pieces with shorter range ones, or to reduce the exisiting (limited
variety) would make that game worse.

25 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.