[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
H.G.
Here is another idea for 10x8 openings to test with your engines, use random setups with the Four 'Modern' Chess Principles.
- The option of having both Bishops start up on squares of the same color
- Reverse Symmetry
- Symmetric Castling to either side
- In a 10x8 setup it could be: either short or long castling (but not both)
- short castling: O-Ob is Kb1 & Rc1 [Kb8 & Rc8 for black]; O-Oi is Ki1 & Rh1 [Ki8 & Rh8 for black]
- long castling: O-O-Oc is Kc1 & Rd1 [Kc8 & Rd8 for black]; O-O-Oh is Kh1 & Rg1 [Kh8 & Rg8 for black])
- The Bishop Adjustment Rule to give players the choice (if they wish) to move a Bishop to the opposite color squares in setups where both Bishops start on the same color squares.
H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, May 18, 2008 06:01 AM UTC:OK, fair enough. But 10x8 variants are rapidly growing more popular with engine programmers, and I intend to contribute to that process through organizing the 'Battle of the Goths' tournament series, and publishing rating lists. I might want to share important developments in that area here, so it would be useful to know which engines can be mentioned, and which not. Is the problem caused by the 'G-word', and should I avoid any reference to engines that contain the G-word as part of their name? So far there are only two of this, but there are likely to be many more in the future, as people tend to name their engines after the variant they are playing.
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, May 17, 2008 10:37 PM UTC:HG, before I became editor, this site and editors had considerable problems. It is unfortunate that people cannot always get along, and things sometimes get unpleasant. It is one of the reasons we ask for civil discourse. Sadly, things have not always run smoothly, and we edit. This editing includes both specific names and more general references, most of which are obvious upon reflection. If you don't mind a bit of levity here, I'll say you have certainly not managed to get yourself on our watch list. So you are quite welcome to post references to your own site [unless it becomes advertising - this site does charge for advertising ;-) ] and you can certainly reference such people, places, and things as you desire on your own site. A number of people maintain their own sites, and post variants and related works on them, with links posted here at CV. No problem, especially since you're not selling anything. But any reference to a banned topic will be edited out here on this site. And this is very much a 'G' [for 'General'] site, kids are welcome. So we keep it safe for children, also. I hope this has clarified things [although it's probably just muddied them up more]. With the extremely rare exception, we invite people to participate - politely, of course. Enjoy. Joe
H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, May 17, 2008 05:05 PM UTC:I am sorry to have put your site in jeopardy, I was not aware that giving a link to a site as a source of information could make you subject to a lawsuit. But why did you delete the reference to poor Michel's program? My own engines are mentioned on the unspeakable website as well, on the very page of which you deleted the link. I even gave permission to its owner to host them there for download, should I no longer want to host them myself. Does that mean I will in the future also not be allowed to mention any of my own engines here??? Would it at least be allowed to mention the perfomance rating of the [other software]? Anyway, people interested in the complete result of the WinBoard General 10x8 Championship 2008, can find it on my own website, on the page: http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/BotG08G/finalstanding.html
H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, May 17, 2008 01:50 PM UTC:Note there are now many free computer programs that can play the 10x8 variants with the Capablanca piece set. Many do use the WinBoard protocol to communicate their moves, so they can be made to play each other automatically under the WinBoard GUI. Pages with many links to downloadable engines you will find at http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/10x8.html and [at another site.] The results of a recent tournament of the WB compatible engines at long time control (55 min + 5 sec/move), where each engine had to play each other engine 10 times, over 5 different opening setups (Carrera, Bird, Capablanca, and Embassy), led to the following ranking: Rank Name Elo + - games score oppo. draws 1 Joker80 n 2432 96 83 70 80% 2110 0% 2 TJchess10x8 2346 83 76 70 72% 2122 4% 3 Smirf 1.73h 2304 80 75 70 68% 2128 4% 4 Smirf Donation 2165 73 73 70 53% 2148 9% 5 [other software] 6 Fairy-Max 4.8 v 2027 72 77 70 34% 2168 11% 7 BigLion80 4apr 1945 76 84 70 26% 2179 7% 8 ArcBishop80 1.00 1822 86 103 70 15% 2197 4% Except for Smirf 1.73h, all the engines are available for free download, from their various sources. In addition, there exist several programs with incompatible interfaces, such as ChessV and Zillions of Games. Their level of play is not thoroughly tested, as the incompatibility of their interfaces makes it impossible to play them against each other without assistance of a Human operator, which again makes it difficult to conduct the hundreds of games necessary for reliable rating determination. Compared to the ranking above, Zillions would rank at the very bottom. [The above has been edited to remove a name and site reference. It is the policy of cv.org to avoid mention of that particular name and site to remove any threat of lawsuits. Sorry to have to do that, but we must protect ourselves. - J. Joyce]
If anyone would like to see multiple attempts at 8x8 Capablanca chess, you can go to this thread here and get ahold of a ZRF file which contains 15 variants on the idea: http://abstractgamers.org/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=54&page=1#Item_3
Go take a look at Univers Chess, which I invented yesterday. It uses the same pieces with a more Chess-like setup.
I took a look at Grotesque Chess. To me, it is too much unlike chess so it would get low marks for being a viable variant. There is no way to put the Bishops on long diagonals so finachettoes are non existant. Next, the Knight placement upsets the addage 'knights before bishops.' If you play Nc3 or Nh3 you block in the c-pawn or h-pawn which would keep the Bb1 or Bi1 locked in place. So, you need to play the c- or h-pawn almost by force to the 4th rank before putting a knight in that same file. This detracts from the game. So playing the knights even closer to the center on their first move again seems almost forced. And knights on e3 anf f3 immediately interferes with the the diagonal range of two majors, the Qc1 and Eh1. I think it safe to say the Grotesque setup introduces more problems than it solves so at least you picked the right name for it.
Earlier games of this sort are flawed by having an unprotected Pawn on each side. This is true of Carrera's Chess, Bird's Chess, Capablanca's Chess, and Aberg's Capablanca variation. More recent games of this sort have fixed this problem by initially arranging pieces in a way that keeps all Pawns protected. I think it is fair to say that this is an improvement, and any of the more recent games (such as Grotesque Chess, Embassy Chess, and Ladorean Chess) are better than the earlier games. I have not played any of these games extensively enough to say from experience that any is better than any of the others. Based on my understanding of good game design and an examination of the rules of these games, I would venture a guess that Grotesque Chess is the best of the bunch. Bear in mind here that I invented Grotesque Chess and could well be biased toward my own creation. Be that as it may, I had reasons for designing it as I did. The main thing about Grotesque Chess that I consider an improvement is its more flexible castling rule. I think this is more suitable for a board this size, and unlike the similar castling rule in Aberg's variation, it stops short of being the equivalent of two moves. I also think that moving the Knights closer to the center may make them more useful, given the greater width of this board. Ladorean Chess has the same castling rule and the same initial position of Knights. I created this game too, at one time considering it as the form Grotesque Chess would take, but discarded it in favor of the form Grotesque Chess did take. I favored the form I gave to Grotesque Chess, because it more symmetrically arranged pieces with Bishop moves.
Walter: The Embassy Chess position RNBQKMCBNR has its share of quick mates. Using C=Cardinal: 1. h4 c5 2.Ch2 e6 3.Cd6 checkmate. Fergus Duniho's Grotesque Chess is another variant of Capablanca's Chess in which no Pawn is left unprotected at the start of the game.
Reinhard Scharnagl has a program that plays Capablanca Chess. He is the one that made the random version too. His program, called SMIRF, also plays other large variant Chess games and regular Chess as well. Janus Chess, Embassy Chess, and Bird's Chess are in it. He says he's still working on it and trying to make it stronger, but it's had little trouble defeating me at BrainKing at Janus Chess for some time now. He just recently added Embassy Chess and the SMIRF is showing me how to play that game as well. I've played Janus Chess the most of the games, but I will get better at Embassy Chess. I've never actually played a game of Bird's Chess or Capablanca Chess, though those two games I've known for many years and only in the last couple of years did I get to play the other ones. The same goes for Grand Chess, though that's a 10 × 10 board size game it has a lot of things in common with these other games. SMIRF link: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html
It doesn't play very well without the keys to unlock the machine's thinking powers. He listed them on the BrainKing 10 × 8 Chess discussion board.
May I recommend Embassy Chess? It too is played on the 10 × 8 board with
the same pieces as Bird's or Capablanca Chess though named as in Grand
Chess. The Marshall moves as a Rook or Knight and the Cardinal moves as a
Bishop or Knight. The set up is like Grand Chess if played on the 10 × 8
board with the Rooks in line with the other pieces. The game is played
just
like regular Chess except castling has the King move three squares
towards
the Rook instead of two. A promoted Pawn has the additional choice of the
Marshall or Cardinal. Seeing how so many people get worked up about all
the Pawns being protected from the start of the game, they should find
this version acceptable. I like it because the King and Queen are placed
together and it gives it a regular Chess look.
As far as I know, there's no quick and easy Fool's mates in this
version
either. Nor if it has a Scholar's mate equivalent either. With the
Marshall and Cardinal side by side they can both be moved like Knights
and
developed.
The game gets its name from Modern Bird's Chess (MBC) and seems like a
good choice if one thinks of an embassy with dignitaries visiting the
ambassador. Kevin Hill proposed it in 2004, but it mainly went unplayed
as
the other three versions are more or less the same game. Embassy Chess is not patented and is available to the public
without restriction.
I am wondering about Capablanca's Chess and the names for the Marshall
and Cardinal. What did he call the pieces? Did their names change as he
worked on his version of Bird's Chess? Were they are named Guard and
Equerry? Does anyone have the order in which the names developed? I am
not
able to get the books mentioned in the links above. If I ever come across
them, I'll read about the variants in them.
I don't agree about the wasted space comment of Grand Chess. With the
pieces moved away from the back row, it plays very much like a 10 × 8
board. The Rooks have free reign on the back rows and are in the game
from
the beginning. The King has some running room and it seems to make him a
little harder to get early in the game. Whether or not this makes the
game
better than the 10 × 8 games is a whole different deal. It certainly
makes
it the best 10 × 10 variant played with these pieces. The Pawn promotion
makes it a different game when it comes into play though. If a lot of
pieces get traded off the board sure gets an open look to it. At least
the
Pawns only have to go to eighth row instead of the tenth row.
All these games played with these pieces seem not too likely to go to the
end game as often as regular Chess. The extra power of the two additional
pieces and two Pawns with the King being the same piece as usual makes
him
lots more vulnerable to attacks, gambits, and sacrifices.
'Uncovered pawns are not that problematic because any situation will have to be set up randomly very short before a game starts. Looking at the Shogi game there are indeed three uncovered pawns in the beginning and the game still does exist today. Capablanca's chess is somehow different to that because of the huge number of possible starting arrays viewing all shuffled combinations.' I think the problem is more a matter of the piece set and shape of the board. Even if a pawn is undefended in a Fischerandom setup, it can't be attacked instantly, unless it's an a/b/g/h pawn and the piece on its diagonal is a bishop or queen. But an archbishop or chancellor has a pretty good chance of being able to make an instant attack on that pawn by jumping over its own pawn row (as the chancellor can indeed do to the i-pawn in Capablanca's setup), and the diagonal discovered attack can affect 80% of the pawns instead of half. Upon further review, we're discussing opposite ends of the issue. The points I just made are why the no-undefended-pawn rule is desirable; the large number of positions is what makes it practical (i. e. you still have a huge pool of positions to choose from).
To Jeanette and Alina with inquiries dated 2005-05-14 and 2004-12-23 respectively: There is a good probability that whenever you see an individual with Capablanca as his or her last name, there is going to be a relationship with José Raúl Capablanca (1888-1942). Sergio Gustavo Capablanca (1918-1997) was the son of Bernardo Salvador Tadeo Capablanca Graupera (1885-1940) and Maria de la Gloria Graupera Capablanca (1890-1975). Bernardo Salvador, was one of José Raúl's brothers, the others were Aquiles, Ramiro and Carlos and six sisters, Aida, Hilda, Graciela, Alicia, Zenaida and Clemencia. I hope this helps. I am Sergio M. Capablanca, son of Sergio Gustavo Capablanca and grandnephew of José Raúl.
Reply to Jeanette: I am one of Capablanca's granddaughter. I don't think Sergio Capablanca is related to us. I'll ask some other family members anyway.
Carrera's, Bird's, Chancellor, Capablanca, Grand, Grotesque, Aberg's Capablanca, New Chancellor's, Cagliostro's, Gast's, General's, Arch-Chess, Grander -- [That's only thru 'G' so far.] -- each and all have the very same 8 types of pieces and relative merit. Each version argues for a particular initial position and somewhat trivial promotion or castling differences. Personally I rate Grand Chess in the lowest because of all the wasted space in 40% piece density: the Knights are just lost there. Capablanca 10x10 is cumbersome too and he knew it, so he went to 8x10. No one tries a 'Capablanca 10x12', presumably because Pawns nine-steps-apart fly in the face of some (instinctive?) unarticulated standard. It does not take much feel for the game, or sense of chess geometry, to reject some algorithms out of hand and even for sake of experimention, to rule out certain combinations, pieces and boards.
Why filter random positions based on Capablanca' extended board?
Let's talk first on FRC (I have written a small book on that in German language). One main intention to create FRC (or Chess960) has been to make it impossible to provide a complete opening theory for each position. Thus the number of 960 distinct starting positions is helpful to reach that goal. Uncovered pawns are not that problematic because any situation will have to be set up randomly very short before a game starts.
Looking at the Shogi game there are indeed three uncovered pawns in the beginning and the game still does exist today.
Capablanca's chess is somehow different to that because of the huge number of possible starting arrays viewing all shuffled combinations. But during the history from Carrera to Bird, Capablanca [through to contemporary versions] it has been a point of critic and missing acceptance of that extended board. So it could not be counter productive to select special starting arrays which seem to be positionally better constructed, without reducing the huge number of possible initial positions too much.
That leads to the both new rules: a) placing Queen and Archbishop (Archangel) at different colored squares, and b) avoiding unprotected pawns. I cannot see any negative payload connected with this two additional demands. More then 20.000 possibilities should be sufficient.
Also see a nice SMIRF (providing both: FRC and CRC) preview at: http://www.chessbox.de/_tmp/SmirfPrototyp.png
Thomas Alsop wrote on Thu, Jan 6, 2005 12:53 PM UTC:Good ★★★★Before I was aware of the existence of Capablanca Random Chess(CRC), I had designed my own hybrid of Fischer Random Chess(FRC)(sometimes known as Chess960) and Capablanca Chess. My hybrid, Capablanca84000, includes 84000 set-ups as opposed to the 21259 for CRC. The rule differences are: 1. CRC states that the queen and archbishop must be placed on opposite coloured squares. Since neither piece is colour-bound (unlike the bishops) I had not chosen to include this rule. Indeed, a common and logical first move for the archbishop is that of the knight-style jump, thus landing it on a different coloured square. If it can be proven that the jump is the more common first move for the archbishop, it would be equally logical to place the queen and archbishop on same coloured squares. 2. CRC states that each pawn must be covered. FRC does not and neither does Capablanca84000. If FRC did include this rule, it would no longer contain 960 set-ups since some contain uncovered pawns. For example, set-ups which begin with knight-knight-rook starting from either the a- or h-file contain 2 uncovered pawns on either the a and b files or g and h files.
Jeanette wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2004 08:34 AM UTC:I just got on this site because I was researching my family... does anyone know if Jose Raul Capablanca has relations to a Sergio Capablanca from Cuba?
There has been stated that CRC (Capablanca Random Chess / FullChess) would not yet be playable e.g. as a Zillons emulation. But that is not quite correct. Of course there already a beta version is existing of the soon to be finished Smirf program. You could find it downloadable at http://www.chessbox.de/beta.html (see Project Chronicle at 2004-Sep-29). But it has to be remarked that this is a version finally to be released as shareware. Thus a lot of functions are shrinked and the user sometimes will be 'invited' to watch the licensing screen.
Currently I decided to use the second form using '10' to encode ten empty squares.
Question on encoding Capablanca FEN strings: Smirf actually encodes positions like: rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/0/0/0/0/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQCKABNR w KQkq - 0 1 do you think it would be better to use completed numbers like: rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQCKABNR w KQkq - 0 1 I am not sure, what to do. So I am gathering arguments. Reinhard.
Well, I do not want to talk that much on Janus Chess here. But the difference is more subtile, e.g. the a-side castling brings the king to the b-file instead of the c-file.
When I have understood your intentions right (I am not sure) you want to know something on the filtering of those 48.000 basic positions. Well, the idea is, that having such a big bool of randomized targets, it would be a good idea to kick off all of them which could have the potential to be an argument that the CRC would produce unfair or unstable positions. So reducing to about 21.000 positions without undefended pawns will nevertheless leave back a huge number of possible starting arrays, which might be sufficient for the current century.
Reinhard.
Hi Reinhard I had given a glance on your site many months ago and I don't remembered this proposal (perhaps I wasn't interested in it). Up to now I don't know the castling rules but I think that it isn't a problem to change 'J' in 'A' in the notation, because Janus and Archbishop are practically the same piece (I think). I hope you increase the strength of your program that I haven't yet downloaded but I don't think it's yet more strong than Shredder in regular chess. I want only know from you what do you think about to ponder the best dispositions in randomize process (for example excluding the dispositions with undefended pawns). Regards Giulio
Hi! So see me astonished, I have not thought on such a congruency. If you would have inspected my homsite www.chessbox.de, you would have detected that proposal much earlier. But I think, that it should be a better place here to introduce and discuss that proposal than at a private hompage. You try to motivate also to include Janus chess somehow within that proposal. If you would have noticed in my current Smirf program beta, Janus chess is included in that fine 10x8 and 8x8 aware program. But I have to learn, that there are some incompatibilities, which force to exclude Janus from that ramdom idea: a) the notation for castling is reversed, b) the usage of 'J' instead of 'A' in FEN and encoded moves, c) the need to also encode the inverted castling by preceeding the castling block within FEN with an 's' for 'symmetric'. If you would spend some time in watching the Smirf program approach you would notice such interesting things like that it supports all capablanca based positions (and even CRC or Janus chess) and a PGN load and save of played games. Regards, Reinhard.
However give my best best best auguries for your proposal, that surely you've explained in more complete and exhausting way than how much I wanted to make (to only transmit an idea, the same one that you have already had :-), but that many seem not had spoken up to now, in spite of the lot of number of chess variants). This isn't the first time that i crossover with your ideas, and i've talked with you about all possible pawns structres with same results with same resulting number (do you rememerber? after that I haven't no more working about calculating the exact number of all possible chess positions because I'm not a serious one-question-at-time solver, in fact I preferred work on my personal 'classical chess opening book'...). However a little difference in my proposal were on the possibility to incluce in the randomize also the 'Archbishop or Chancellor' chosen, so to include in the random possibilities the well-known/well-playable Janus Chess variant (pratically Capablanca Chess with 2 Archbishops instead of Archbishop+Chancellor). I also propose to ponder the random possibilities in the chosen of disposition of the pieces, in the randomize process. In fact as Ed Trice says that his disposition is more well-playable than the original Carrera/Capablanca disposition, and as Anand says that some dispositions in Fischer Random Chess are bad-playable, we can start to ponder the dispositions do it's more probable in the random-chosen a disposition like the Gothic Chess or Janus Chess or Grotesque Chess, instead of a disposition with more unprotected pawns (not well-playable as Ed Trice says). Such new specialty could very well be Wild 30 between the 'Wild' Chess Variants of ICC (the Internet Chess Club) (http://www.chessclub.com/helpcenter/tips/wild.html), as perhaps Random Thematic Chess, another chess variant that I've proposed in another discussion (http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000674), both to obtain the same result to diminish the advantage of the theorical preparation (not being able to choose the opening from a personal mnemonic repertory, like Bobby Fischer says). My best regards, Reinhard I will follow you Giulio
There is a new program Smirf (still beta) playing not only 8x8 classic
chess and Fischer Random Chess but also 10x8 Chess variants based on the
Capablanca piece set. It supports also Janus chess and the Capablanca
Random Chess (or FullChess) variant proposed by myself since several
months:
CAPABLANCA RANDOM CHESS (2004-Nov-26) Proposal
This definition of CRC should cover the following goals:
a) creating an interesting drosophila for chess programmers
b) using Capablancas 10x8 Chess board geometry
c) using Capablancas piece set (incl. archbishop and chancellor)
d) applying rules aligned to Fischer Random Chess
e) avoiding conflicts to any claimed patents
The CRC rules are:
a) creating a starting position (one of 48.000):
1) the bishops have to be placed upon different colored
squares; same rule applies to the implicite bishop pieces:
queen and archbishop (aligned to FRC)
2) the king always has to be placed somewhere between the
rooks to enable castlings (aligned to FRC)
3) use only such positions without unprotected pawns (Chess)
b) describing a method of generating starting positions on
free squares by using a dice or random number generator:
1) select queen or the archbishop to be placed first (2x)
2) place the selected 1st piece upon a bright square (5x)
3) place the selected 2nd piece upon a dark square (5x)
4) one bishop has to be placed upon a bright square (4x)
5) one bishop has to be placed upon a dark square (4x)
6) one chancellor has to be placed upon a free square (6x)
7) one knight has to be placed upon a free square (5x)
8) one knight has to be placed upon a free square (4x)/2
9) set the king upon the center of three free squares left
11) set the rooks upon the both last free squares left
12) this establishes White's first row, the Black side
has to be built up symmetrically to this
13) place ten pawns similar to traditional chess in a row
14) skip this position if it has unprotected pawns or not
at least three positions in line 1 differently filled
compared to Gothic Chess, this finally gives about
21.259 distinct starting arrays.
c) nature of (asymmetric Fischer-) castlings:
1) castlings are (like in traditional chess) only valid
if neither the affected king or rook has been moved, or
there would be a need to jump over any third piece, or
the king would be in chess somewhere from his starting
position to his target field (both included). Therefore
all squares between king and its target square (included)
have to be free from third pieces, same applies to the
way the rook has to go to its target square.
2) the alpha-castling (O-O-O, White's left side):
like in FRC the king will be placed two rows distant
from the border (here c-file) and the rook at the next
inner neighboured square.
3) the omega-castling (O-O, White's right side):
like in FRC the king will be placed one row distant
from the border (here i-file) and the rook at the next
inner neighboured square.
d) performing castlings:
within a GUI try to move the king upon the related rook
or at least two squares into that direction; manually:
1) move the king outside of the board
2) move the rook to its end position (if need to)
3) move the king to his end position
e) extended FEN encoding:
1) the extended FRC-FEN could be used as a base
2) 'a'/'A' are used to identify archbishops
3) 'c'/'C' are used to identify chancellors
4) '9' is used to mark nine empty fields
5) '0' is used to mark ten empty fields
6) if a castling enabled rook is not the most outer one
at that side, the letter of his file has to be placed
immediately following his castling marker symbol, where
'q'/'Q' are used for the alpha-, 'k'/'K' for omega-side.
f) engine notation rules for castling moves:
According to UCI convention the castling moves should be
written by using both coordinates (source and target field)
of the involved king. But there are castlings, where the
king does only one or none simple step. In that cases the
castling should be distinguishable by appending a 'k', like
already practized in promotion moves to make them unique.
Overmore an engine should accept O-O or O-O-O (no zeroes),
but only use them, when the GUI would demand for such a
less precise notation.Even a formula restricted to the (really pretty well-populated) set of CV's that you specify would be quite interesting, if it can be shown to be valid. For one thing it would probably suggest approaches that could be tried for finding formulas applicable to other kinds of CV's. I'm also agnostic about the existence of such a formula, but I'd be interested in seeing the fruit of the effort, especially if it can all be gathered into a single page.
Michael Howe: Larry Smith in 21-3-04 Game Design comment: 'The advantage in the exchange: No matter the number of the various pieces, a game might have a significant difference between the weakest and the strongest. This allows for the potential of advantage in the game, even if the exchanges are equal. Of course this value would be quite difficult to quantify and would vary from one game to the next, being dependent upon field and goal.' Exchange Gradient now quantifies this, and used for Moves, it closely predicts game lengths, looking at Courier games and elsewhere. I repeatedly called attention to Mark Thompson's article 'Defining Abstract'(Depth, Clarity, Drama) until someone took note. Now I call attention to Smith's Exchange Gradient as useful predictor. Here Capablanca's Chess should show longer games systematically than Orthodox, its low EG not overcoming higher board size.
Capablanca's Chess design analysis
# squares: 80
# piece types: 8
Piece-type density: 10%
Initial piece density: 50%
Long diagonal: a1-h8
Est. piece values: P1, K2, N3, B3, R5, A7, C8, Q9
Power density: 1.40
Exchange Gradient: 0.469 (1 - G = 0.531)
Ave. Game Length Projected: M = 3.5T/P(1-G) = (3.5*8)/(1.4*(0.531))
= 38 Moves
Features: Includes all three two-fold R-N-B compounds, low G means very
good exchange potential
Comment: Around 80 years now since the Grandmaster's advocacy of larger
board to confront draw problem, Capablanca's Chess
practically mimics Carrera's idea from about 400 years ago.The page on Bird's Chess is http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/bird.html
Hans Aberg <haber wrote on Fri, May 16, 2003 10:13 PM UTC:H. E. Bird invented a precursor to Capa Chess, the difference being the new pieces next to the King & Queen.
Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, May 5, 2003 06:54 AM UTC:Good ★★★★Why were the Bishops swapped round with the new combined pieces. My own preference is for the versions with all the combined pieces on the innermost files and the elementals on the outer ones. It seems tidier, and also conforms to my instinct (admittedly more æsthetic than functional) for the Bishop-combiners to start on opposite square colours.
Mike Nelson wrote on Sun, Jan 12, 2003 07:14 PM UTC:I might call it Capablanca 64 but if a catchier name springs to mind, please feel free to name it.
M. Howe wrote on Sun, Jan 12, 2003 06:58 PM UTC:Good ★★★★Mike, sounds interesting. Care to name this variant? I think I'll make a zrf and try it out. I think I'll also experiment with some similar games putting all of the pawns on the third rank and dropping the pawn-2 and en-passant rules.
Mike Nelson wrote on Sun, Jan 12, 2003 06:28 PM UTC:Back in the 70's some friends and I played Capablanca's Chess on an 8x8 board with some pieces borrowed from a second set for the Archbishop and Chancellor. The FIDE setup was altered by putting pawns on b3 and g3, Knights on b2 and g2, Archbishop on b1 and Chancellor on g1 (and corresponding for Black). The pawns on the third rank can't take a double step. Yes, I know the pawn structure is awful, but nothing is undefended. The Knights' immediate access to the fourth rank make this variant quite treacherous.
39 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Here is another 10x8 variant option for your engines, a random setup with the Four 'Modern' Chess Principles:
There are 151,200 possible starting positions!
The Four 'Modern' Chess Principles are:
In a 10x8 setup castling can be either short (O-O) or long (O-O-O), but not both:- O-Ob is Kb1 & Rc1 [Kb8 & Rc8 for black]; or O-Oi which is Ki1 & Rh1 [Ki8 & Rh8 for black]
- O-O-Oc is Kc1 & Rd1 [Kc8 & Rd8 for black]; or O-O-Oh which is Kh1 & Rg1 [Kh8 & Rg8 for black]
Here is a sample preset for 'Modern Capablanca Random Chess'.
PS-I submited the comment below on the subject of the Four Modern Chess Principles. The comment below can be deleted.