Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 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

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
ChessVA computer program
. Program for playing numerous Chess variants against your PC.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Oct 5, 2004 12:02 AM UTC:
Unfortunately, ChessV doesn't work well on my computer. After my first move, the spaces and pieces all turn the same color, rendering them invisible. I have 256 MB of RAM and a Pentium III.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Oct 5, 2004 04:25 AM UTC:
Roberto:  I have found a couple of bugs in the function that decides when
the King is in check (the problem responsible for the Kings being
captured.)  I will e-mail you a new program file shortly ...  There could
still be additional bugs with this, though ...  Check-detection in Ultima
is *really* ugly!  But when these problems are solved, I bet it will
immediately play a much smarter game.

Fergus:  Ick!  I have heard a similar report from a Windows 98 user.  I
assume you are using Windows 95/98/ME ...  Which is not to say that the
problem is with your OS, and not with my program; it's just that this
problem is extra-tricky for me to solve...  The new versions of Microsoft
Developer Studio do not run on Win 95/98/ME at all, which means that I
cannot use the debugger to help me track this problem.  Still, I need to
come up with some way to find and fix this.  And, if you are running
Windows 2000/XP, then my problems are even worse than I thought :)

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Oct 5, 2004 04:33 AM UTC:
I'm running Windows Me.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Tue, Oct 5, 2004 09:05 AM UTC:
Yes, I did an mental exercise and I think you are right about the
difficulties to write the code about when the King is in Check. One
possible solution is changing the objective of the game to the
capture-the-King rule, as in Zillions.
Chess V is a relatively good player in open positions, because the program
can calculate many tactical moves, it is not easy for a human do it in a
good manner in this game, due the great mobility of pieces and
combinations. The program is less abile in closed positions, because it
does not understand well positional concepts, in fact, it is not designed
using positional evaluation functions, but I agree with Greg, the program
should be smarter if the Check condition detection is well solved, because
part of the responsability of the bad play in some instances is the
incorrect evaluation of the King vulnerability.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Oct 5, 2004 10:49 PM UTC:
<p>Ok, I think I have got all the Ultima problems taken care of.</p> <p>Roberto, (and anyone else who's interested,) you can download the updated program file <a href='http://gregstrong.com/ChessV.exe'>here</a>. Just save this file on top of the old copy, and all should be well. I expect it will play much better now.</p>

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Wed, Oct 6, 2004 03:08 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Uff!, what improvements!. Greg, I have played my first test game, and Chess V won, playing very, very well. I have not used a lot of thinking time for my part (computer: 10 sec. per move in Pentium IV 2.1 Ghz.), but I think I played well too. I can say you that Chess V is now a very good contendor, at least for me, the problems have been fixed, and ChessV has now much more power. At this moment, I´m playing the second test, I have used the 'take-back-last-move' trick three times, after clear blunders or weak moves made by my part (well, it is a test game, so taking back last move a few times is permissed), Chess V mantains slight material advantage, but positional advantage is mine (this was my strategy, playing a closed game and taking relative positional advantages). I´m going to play the end thinking carefully each move, because I think I can win, but it seems it is not going to be easy. Once finished (I suppose tomorrow, the game can be very extense), I´ll send to you the saved game.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Wed, Oct 6, 2004 03:10 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
With the help of my son and a friend, we finished the fever caused by the
fifth test game with a victory over Chess V after 6 titanic hours of a
very disputed game to complete near 85 moves (we played White, and Chess V
used 10 sec. per move in Pentium IV, 2.1 GHz.). The program played really
well, it attacked and defended strongly, but this game is very
instructive, it puts on the carpet the way of taking positional advantages
in this kind of closed positions, and shows why this is a game which
sometimes favours defense over attack. See and enjoy it!:

Ultima
f2f4 g7g5 e1g3 a7a4 h2h5 b7b5 g3g4 c7c4 g1h2 h8c3
 e2e3 d7a7 g4g3 d8d4 e3f3 f7f6 h2g1 d4e4 !c2 e4g6
 c1c2 g6f7 d1c1 h7h3 g1h2 g8h8 g3h4 c8g4 h4h7 f8h6
 h2g3 g4h3 g3h2 h6h4 f4e4 f7d5 h1g1 d5b7 g1e3 h3h1
 e3d4 b8g3 f1d1 g3e3 d4b4 h4d4 a2a3 e8d8 b4b3 h1h4
 g2g1 h8g7 b2a2 b7d5 c2c3 e3e6 a1b2 d5g2 c3g3 g7g8
 b1c2 d4d6 g3g7 g8g3 d1f1 e6e5 a2a1 a8g2 c2h2 h4h1
 b2h2 a4h4 f1h3 e5c3 c1d1 d6d5 d1e1 f6h6 e1f1 d8c8
 f1g2 d5f3 g2h1 h4f4 b3d1 h6e6 d1f1 e6e4 h2g2 f4h4
 h1h2 c3e5 g1h1 b5b4 h2g1 e4e2 g1f2 e5f4 h1h2 f4e4
 f2g3 e2f2 g3f2 e4b1 f1d3 b1g6 g2a8 c8d8 h3e3 g6h6
 e3e5 h4f4 h2h1 h6a6 f2f3 a6a5 e5g7 a5a2 f3g4 f4e4
 g4h5 e7d7 h5g6 d7d6 g7f8 e4f4 g6f6 a2e6 f6g7 e6a2
 g7g8 a2a3 f8f7 a3a2 a8b7 d6d7 b7c6 b4c4 g8f8 c4b4
 f7e8 d8c8 c6b6 c8b8 e8d8 a2c2 f8e8 d7d5 e8d7 f4f8
 d7e8 f8f3 b6b5 d5c5 b5d3 f3f4 d3b3 f4e4 a1a5 c5d5
 d8b6 d5d1 e8d7 b8a8 d7c7 a7b7 a5a7 !c2 b6b7

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Fri, Oct 8, 2004 04:41 PM UTC:
Greg, I tried to load the 5th. test ULTIMA game, saved file, and I found an
illegal move saved (the saved game couldn´t be loaded, by this reason),
number 9, it shows !c2, and the same move is saved as the last move of the
game. You can see it in the list of moves I sent as a comment on the game,
or I can send you the saved file, as you prefer. I don´t remeber what move
I made as 9th., but it was surely legal, and I can´t understand what !c2
means. 
As for the program, I finished the 6th. test game yesterday night, and I
Chess V won. It is now strong enough, I think, I used the 'take-back'
facility a lot of times, but the program beated me playing with great
force. Would you tell me what changes have you made in the program?.
Excellent improvements!

📝Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Oct 8, 2004 05:13 PM UTC:
Yes, I see the bug you mention.  The move !c2 is a suicide move
(immobilized piece on c2 kills itself.)  Apparently, it is not reading the
sucide moves back in correctly.  I will post a fix shortly.  

About your question, what changes I made ...  I fixed several bugs ... Not
just the check-testing bug, which allowed the King to get captured, but I
also found a couple of others where things were not being evaluated
correctly.  The program now functions (hopefully) exactly acording to the
evaluation function previously described.  In other words, the bad play
you experienced was entirely caused by bugs.

Thank you for testing, and reporting these problems!
Greg

📝Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Oct 9, 2004 06:19 PM UTC:
<p>I have posted an update which corrects the load-game-with-suicide-move problem. This update also re-activates the Transposition Table, a feature which speeds things up considerably, which I disabled long ago due to a bug. I pretty sure I've got that fixed now, too, so it should now be about 25% faster at all games. On the other hand, if you have less than 128 Megs ram, it's not likely to function well at all. You can download the updated executable here:</p> <p><a href='http://gregstrong.com/ChessV.exe'>http://gregstrong.com/ChessV.exe</a></p> <p>I will post a full update to sourceforge soon, with the version number 0.71. The disappearing board problem on Win 95/98/ME won't be fixed in this version, though, but hopefully the next; still trying to get a handle on that one ...</p>

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Fri, Oct 15, 2004 09:16 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Good job! I used ChessV to produce nice pictures for Wikipedia article on
Capablanca Chess, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca_Chess.

Wish List:
* Would be nice if settings made in 'Options / Board and Pieces...'
would be kept between program starts.
* I use 800x600 screen resolution and games with 10x10 board, e.g. Grand
Chess doesn't fit on my screen. Would be nice if the board is scaled
automatically when window size changes, like in Arena.
* Pieces are flashing when you make a move. This can be fixed e.g. by
using double-buffering technique.
* Can we have Three Checks Chess in ChessV (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Checks_Chess)? Zillions plays it quite
pure.

Thank you for development of this nice program!

📝Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Oct 15, 2004 09:51 PM UTC:
<p>Thanks for the feedback! Regarding your requests: <blockquote>Would be nice if settings made in 'Options / Board and Pieces...' would be kept between program starts.</blockquote> Actually, it should do that already. Be aware that those settings are game-by-game; in other words, if you change settings in one game or variant it should be saved, but only for that variant. There is currently no way to change these settings for all games. If your settings are not even being stored for a specific game then I will need to look into that; if this is the case, please let me know what OS you are running. <blockquote>I use 800x600 screen resolution and games with 10x10 board, e.g. Grand Chess doesn't fit on my screen. Would be nice if the board is scaled automatically when window size changes, like in Arena.</blockquote> Yes, this is a problem. I have a partial solution underway that will be available in the next release. I am creating a 'small' piece set for use with larger games and/or smaller monitors. These new icons I am creating are derived from the Alfaerie set, but not by reduction - that leads to blurry or poor-looking images; I am tweaking these pixel-by-pixel. As for zooming the board, since the pieces are bitmaps, any scaling would probably look rather bad. <blockquote>Pieces are flashing when you make a move. This can be fixed e.g. by using double-buffering technique.</blockquote> Yes, this is a known problem, and your proposed solution is exactly what is needed. At present the problem isn't too bad with a fast video-card and modern video driver (on my computer it isn't even visible) but still needs to be fixed. Sadly, graphics program isn't something I know much about ... In the meantime, please make sure you have the latest video driver for your video card. This can make a big difference. <blockquote>Can we have Three Checks Chess in ChessV?</blockquote> Ok. This is simple, so it will be in the next version.</p>

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Sat, Oct 16, 2004 08:06 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Yes, now I noticed that color settings are stored per specific game type. I
think, it would be nice to have possibility to apply the color changes to
all game types (may be with an option to apply only to one game type as
now). By the way are there any reason to restrict the number of available
colors to 48? With more available colors it is easier to find a nicer
color scheme.

I also found a bug in Bird's Chess. ChessV castled out-of-check in
position after:

d2d4 f7f6 i1h3 g7g5 g2g3 g5g4 h3i1 h8g7 f2f3 i8h6 f3g4 h6g4 h1f3 e8g6 i1h3
d7d6 e2e4 c8d7 e1e2 e7e5 d4d5 f6f5 b1c3 h7h6 h3f2 g8j5 f3g2 j5i6 f2g4 i6g4
g2f3 g4f6 c1d2 g6f7 d1f2 j8g8 f1c1 f5e4 f3e4 j7j5 h2h3 b8a6 g1j4 a6c5 e4g2
i7i5 j4i3 f6i3 f2f7 d8f7 j2i3 g7f6 j1j5 g8g3 d1f1 c7c6 j5j8

ChessV played 0-0-0 here, despite King being in check by rook on j8.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Oct 16, 2004 02:58 PM UTC:
There is no good reason for limiting the colors; I just haven't gotten
around to adding the color-picker dialog yet.

There are several reasons why it would be problematic to make global piece
& color settings.  For one thing, not all piece sets are supported by all
games.  Right now only the Standard set supports all, but the Abstract set
is pretty close.  Also, although right now all boards are 2-colors, the
boards for some games will be 3 or 4 colors.  Finally, I wanted to be able
to provide default settings for games, like Chaturanga, for example, always
appears for the first time on an uncheckered board with the Old World
pieces.  If you could provide global settings, then it wouldn't appear
right by default - it would have checkered squares.

Thanks for the bug report!  Someone had reported this on sourceforge, but
didn't provide me with an example, so I couldn't reproduce it.  Now it
should be easy to track down ...

📝Greg Strong wrote on Mon, Nov 8, 2004 02:53 AM UTC:
<h3>ChessV 0.7.1 released</h3> <p>This is mostly a maintenance release, and fixes numerous bugs. The castling-while-in-Check problem is solved. The Win 95/98/ME disappearing board problem should be dramatically improved, if not completely fixed (I don't have a machine with which to test this at the moment.) Also, another major bug was fixed that was slowing down performance substantially, probably 30-40%.</p> <p>Added support for two new graphics sets: a 'small' set that I made from the Alfaerie set for use with large-board games on low-resolution monitors, and Fergus Duniho's <a href='/graphics.dir/motif/index.html'>motif set</a>.</p> <p>Added support for <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Checks_Chess'>Three Checks Chess</a>.</p> <p>To download, please visit the <a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv'>project's home on sourceforge.net</a>.</p>

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, Nov 8, 2004 04:09 AM UTC:
I just tried it, and the board went blank after my second move of Fischer Random Chess. It turned black this time instead of white. I did not bother to change the piece set from Alfaerie.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Mon, Nov 8, 2004 09:53 PM UTC:
Gee, that is really disappointing. Still disappearing after 2 moves... Oh well, thanks for testing it. I will have to take more radical action (as soon as I figure out what that might be.)

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Mon, Nov 8, 2004 11:44 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Inverted Rook is missing in the small pieces set

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Nov 9, 2004 01:20 AM UTC:
<p>Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out ... To fix it, save the following two images into the 'ChessV/images/small' directory, and restart ChessV. It will be corrected in the next version, of course.<p> <p><a href='http://gregstrong.com/WRookInv.bmp'>WRookInv.bmp</a><br> <a href='http://gregstrong.com/BRookInv.bmp'>BRookInv.bmp</a></p>

Robert Fischer wrote on Fri, Dec 3, 2004 09:04 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Excellent program!  Please do not keep it a secret.  Share it with the
world by making it available thru more than one hot spot.  I certainly am
not criticizing 'Source Forge' but the most popular download spot in
the
world for games by far is:

WinSite
http://www.winsite.com/

Establish an account and upload to the 'Fun & Games' category, 'Chess
Games' sub-category.

I predict that a free, fully-functional, incisive AI program (with a good
selection of games) like yours will soon draw thousands of downloads.

Rest assured, this is NOT spam- just a well-intentioned recommendation.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Dec 4, 2004 12:04 AM UTC:
Thank you, Robert. I will surely take your advice, but I want to wait until I get to version 1.0 (which will happen when I get the last remaining bugs out.) At present, ChessV has serious problems under Windows 95/98/ME... I should have a new version out in January.

Robert Fischer wrote on Sat, Dec 4, 2004 02:42 PM UTC:
Threaded MS Windows operating systems are the problem, not your program.

Whereas NT versions of MS Windows have been the default offerring for
consumers since 2000, I think you are being overly-conscientious in this
case.  If someone complains about ChessV's installation or performance
under MS Win 95, for instance, just tell them to get a decent, modern
operating system.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Dec 4, 2004 06:55 PM UTC:
Oh, no. It is definately a problem with ChessV. And even if it wasn't, I would not tell anyone to 'get a decent, modern operating system.'

GM Gregory Topov wrote on Wed, Dec 8, 2004 04:50 AM UTC:
Sounds like great software...but the website gregstrong.com isn't working for me - is it down right now? I look forward to checking out this great sounding program.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Wed, Dec 8, 2004 12:29 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Yes, it is a great software, I have tried it. To Gregory Topov: Chess V
runs well in Windows XP, but it has some troubles under other Windows
versions. The author (named Greg too) gives us this adress to download the
program:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv

Gregory Topov wrote on Wed, Dec 8, 2004 02:37 PM UTC:
Thanks for that link, I've been able to download it, and look forward to trying it! I guess without being interfaced directly to the ISRCA database, it won't be possible to implement the <a href='http://www.geocities.com/verdrahciretop/src9.html'>Stanley Random Chess</a> 'variant'. But this program certainly seems to have lots of possibilities! Thanks!

📝Greg Strong wrote on Mon, Jan 3, 2005 12:52 AM UTC:
<h3>Version 0.7.2 released</h3> <p>This is primarily a bug-fix release. The disappearing board problem in Windows 95/98/ME has finally been solved. A system crash in Almost Chess has also been fixed. Pawn promotion in Chaturanga has been fixed. Colors preferences will be restored when loading saved games, now, too.</p> <p><b>features:</b> Double-buffering has been added to the video to eliminate flicker. Also, the color-picker now lets you select any color, not just those from the set.</p> <p>Enjoy! <a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv'>Download here</a></p>

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Jan 4, 2005 07:19 PM UTC:
I've tested the new ChessV on Windows 98 and Windows ME, and I haven't encountered the problem I used to have with the disappearing graphics.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jan 4, 2005 07:39 PM UTC:
Thank you. It's so good to know that that problem is finally solved. It had to do with the code to re-color the pieces based on your color preference. I never did come to understand the problem - I just found another way to do it that seems to work (and is faster anyway.)

📝Greg Strong wrote on Thu, May 26, 2005 05:31 PM UTC:
<p>The link on this page is now out-of-date. For all interested in downloading the current versions, the project's home is located as Sourceforge.net:</p> <p><a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv/'>http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv/</a></p> <p>You do not need to check that site to see if there are updates, though. Any updates will be announced here. And, hopefully, a new version will be forthcoming soon.</p>

📝Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Jul 2, 2005 07:17 PM UTC:
<h4>Definition: Quiescent Search</h4> <p>This is a continuation of a discussion from the Angels and Devils page. ChessV, and all commercial Chess programs, use a trick called a quiescent search. I will attempt to describe what this is...</p> <p>Chess programs search to a given depth, but you <i>cannot</i> just stop and evaluate the position when you reach that depth. Consider this situation: the program searches to a depth of 9, and the 9th move is Queen takes Pawn. If you stop right there and evaluate, you will think you are up by a pawn. However, if you were to look one move further, you would see that the opponent's response is Pawn takes Queen! So, obviously it is bad to look at a position and conclude that you are up by a Pawn, when actually you are down by a Queen! Chess programmers refer to this as the horizon problem, and this is where the quiescent search comes in. The standard move-search considers all legal moves and counter-moves to the given depth. Then, rather than evaluating the position at that point, it enters a quiescent search which continues to search deeper. But the quiescent search only considers moves which are captures, and a good quiescent search only considers captures which win material. In this way, the quiescent search continues to play out all exchanges in progress before evaluating the position. Although the technical details of Zillions aren't publically available, I'm 99% sure that it has no capability of quiescent search. This is why sometimes, after searching deeply, it thinks it is way ahead, but after you make your response, it suddenly thinks it is way down. It has overlooked important moves beyond the search horizon.</p> <p><b>Note:</b> Consider games with drops, like Shogi and Chessgi. Quiescent search is pointless in these games because there are no quiescent (quiet) positions! You would have to consider not only captures, but also drops, and if you did that, the quiescent search would never end! You can capture and drop forever! This is why ChessV doesn't support Shogi. This is also why Zillions doesn't support quiescent search ... because if it did, it would not be able to play Shogi, Chessgi, Go, etc ... Professional Shogi programs need to use some really advanced tricks to make it work. What they generally do is this: rather than considering all possible moves, as Chess programs do, they consider only some moves, and they deeper they get, the less and less moves they consider. Which moves they consider is based on game-specific knowledge. For example, in Shogi, dropping a pawn on the square immediately in front of a Bishop is very often good, so that specific move is considered, even when the search is very deep. The problem with this approach is that it require a lot of game-specific knowledge, and tweeks of this kind which work for Shogi would not work for Chessgi (for example.) So, each game becomes a problem all of its own. When adding new games to ChessV, I try to make sure that the intelligence features I'm adding are useful for many games, not just for one game. Or, in other words, I'm picking only the low-hanging fruit.</p>

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Sun, Jul 3, 2005 06:18 AM UTC:
Thanks for the interesting insights. This seems to make sense for Zillions.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Jul 17, 2005 01:21 AM UTC:
<h3>Version 0.8 Released</h3><p>After a very long delay, the new version is finally out. The source code and windows executables are located at the <a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv'>project's home on sourceforge.net</a>. Enjoy!</p><p><b>New games:</b> <a href='/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSopulentchess'>Opulent Chess</a>, <a href='/contests/10/tencubedchess.html'>TenCubed Chess</a>, <a href='/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSmodernshatranj'>Modern Shatranj</a>, <a href='/contests/10/shatranjkamil64.html'>Shatranj Kamil (64)</a>, and <a href='/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSangelsanddevil'>Angels and Devils</a>.</p><p>This version also includes many bug fixes and performance enhancements. The play is significantly more intelligent than before. It also offers new options in the 'Computer Settings' dialog box. You can now set the size of the Transposition Table and Evaluation Cache (in Megabytes), and you can adjust the margins for Razoring and Futility Pruning. (Sometime soon I need to make a post explaining just what all these things are.)</p>

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Mon, Jul 18, 2005 06:23 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Hi, Greg. I have tried Chess V v-0.8, and I am not enterely sure, but my first impression is that the A.I. force has diminished a bit, perhaps I have to adjust some of the new parameters, or there is another thing I can´t see now. I fixed the computer time in 5 seconds per move (on Pentium IV 2.1 GHz.), without altering the other parameters. I played Ultima twice, and Opulent once, and I have not had problems to beat the program (this was not usual with the anterior version), but I was somewhat curious about some weak moves the program made. In Ultima, it left a coordinator unproteceted and changed it by a Pawn, in the second game the program was not careful and I immobilized its Immobilizer with one of my Chameleons, and I could take the Immo a few moves after. In Opulent, the program appeared to be a bit confused with pieces values and made a couple of slightly unfavorable changes, but worse: also ruining its position. Have you idea of what is happening?.

Matthew Montchalin wrote on Mon, Jul 18, 2005 08:13 PM UTC:
When Chess V evaluates positions that are materially equal, how does it
choose between them?  That's more than just a rhetorical question.  We
know there are bound to be thousands of positions that are strategically
and tactically a dead draw.  Whatever distinctions can be found, they
must
be very subtle.  For instance, at the start of the game, what makes 1.
Pa2-a6 any better than 1. Pa2-a3?  Does Chess V employ at some point a
random function to choose between the moves available to it?  If Chess V
plays against itself, how does it perform if the only thing different is
the random seed?  Does C as a programming language allow use of different
pseudo-random number generators, or are you stuck with the one that comes
with your C package?  Would two different versions of Chess V perform
differently if the only thing distinguishing them were the random seeds
inside the C source code?

As for numerical values representing the strengths of the pieces, were
the
figures arrived at through empirical analysis, or by guessing?  Empirical
analysis implies that different versions of Chess V performed differently
when pitted against itself, and the data produced was relied on for newer
versions.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jul 19, 2005 01:27 AM UTC:
<p><b>Roberto</b>: Thanks for the feedback! First, let me make a distinction between Ultima and Opulent (and others.)</p> <p>Ultima is radically different from the other games ChessV implements, and it is very possible that changes which are 'improvements' for most games, could very well reduce the skill at Ultima slightly. Still, such things can be corrected if I can identify the problem; I've run a few Ultima tests today, but nothing conclusive. What I can do is run tests where various settings are changed so that White 'thinks' differently from Black, and then reverse it, and thus see which settings prove to be superior. I've run a few tests today, with the 5-seconds-per-move you have used, and I seem to get a White win no matter how I configure the sides. Increase it to 10 seconds and I start to see a little differentiation. (My hardware is about the same as yours.) I'll play with it some more, but ultimately, to really do Ultima correctly, more code needs to be written to enhance Ultima, but such code doesn't do anything to improve the play of any other games, so I'm reluctant to put too much time into it.</p><p>Opulent Chess is another story; this is a pretty typical game that should be (generally) as strong or weak as other similar games. However, Opulent Chess has 24 pieces/side and that is more than any game supported by the previous version (the new TenCubed Chess also has 24 pieces/side.) And the more pieces, and the larger the board, the more time required to think to the same depth. I wonder if 5 seconds just isn't enough for it to think deeply enough to compete with you at this game. I suspect compairing it to 5 seconds per move at Grand Chess, for example, will show quite a difference in computer playing skill just because the board is significantly more crowded (and, thus, more captures must be considered in the quiescent search.) I would be curious to see what I-Depth is being reached in the mid-game of your Opulent Chess games. When the computer finishes thinking, and has moved, the I-Depth listed at the top-left of the screen is the depth to which the search has completed. If it's stopping at 3 or 4, for example, in complex positions, that might just not be enough to compete. Opulent and TenCubed are the most processor-intensive games (excluding Ultima) that ChessV supports. </p><p>Also, if you have a save-game file for the Opulent Chess game or the Ultima games you describe, please email or post it and let me know the moves in question, so I can study them. It is also very possible that I have introduced new bugs. This version is very, very, VERY different from the previous one. Thanks again!</p>

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jul 19, 2005 01:48 AM UTC:
<p><b>Matthew</b>: Good questions. Evaluation of a position considers many, many factors. The material value of the pieces is, of course, the most important. And, yes, the material values are reached by educated guesses by myself, and others of the chessvariants.org community. The piece values that ChessV uses for Ultima are those values supplied by George Duke (look at all comments on the 'Ultima' page, and you'll see the relevant discussion.) I'll now mention some other factors in the evaluation of a position.</p> <p><i>Piece-square-tables</i>: All pieces get a bonus or penalty based on the square they occupy. Squares in the center of the board are better than squares in the corner (except, possibly, for the King.) The values I use for the piece-square-tables are derived by a number of different means depending on the pieces, the game, and how much time I want to put into the particular game. Generally, the values reward positions which (A) control more spaces, and (B) attack center squares. They penalise positions on the home rank of minor pieces which should be developed, thereby encouraging their development.</p> <p><i>Mobility</i>: Studies on many, many grandmaster-level Chess games show that the player who is winning almost always has more legal moves at his disposal. The is because his pieces are 'more active.' So, some pieces, but not all, are given a bonus based on how mobile they are at present.</p> <p><i>King Tropism</i>: Some pieces are given bonuses for being close to the enemy king. This is <i>obviously</i> good for the Immobilizer, but also for otheres.</p> <p><i>Pawn Structure Evaluation</i>: Doesn't apply to Ultima, but for most games, you want to give a bonus for passed pawns, and a penalty for doubled pawns, etc.</p> <p><i>Ultima-specific factors</i>: All pieces which are immobilized lose 25% of their material value as long as they remain immobilized. The Withdrawer is given a bonus proportional to the most valuable enemy piece that is adjacent, but only if the board has at least one square in the opposite direction for the Withdrawer to move into. The Coordinator gets a bonus proportional to the number of enemy pieces on the same rank or file as the friendly King. Chameleon has several small adjustments.</p> <p>So, there are so many different factors taken into account that it is very unlikely that any two moves will have exactly the same evaluation. Remember that it is not just evaluating a move, it is evaluating the best sequence of move-counter-move-counter-counter-move, etc. No random number generator is used in any of the search or evaluation functions. Given the same position and the same time to think, ChessV will do the same thing every time. In the unlikely event that two moves have exactly the same evaluation (which is almost impossible because of the way Alpha-Beta pruning works) the move selected is the first move generated (which is arbitrary.)</p> <p>Hope this helps! I can only suspect that you are under-estimating the difficulty of making an Ultima program. Just writing a good Chess program is hard enough, and this is much harder in many ways. And you are talking about using assembly language! Such a thing, I dare say, is difficult beyond description. But, I admire your courage!</p>

Matthew Montchalin wrote on Tue, Jul 19, 2005 07:20 AM UTC:
In terms of Ultima/Baroque, any group of 3 or more same-colored pawns
situated, together, a single knight's move away from each other, make
for
a much stronger structure than those that are not.  This may mean more to
us in an endgame than from the typical starting position, so it should be
examined after the variables for fluidity/mobility are arrived at. 
Although a pawn or pincher can strike against enemies bounded by
non-enemy
pieces, the relative slowness of a group of pawns (compared to a group of
noble piece) means that 'pawn structure' - as such - can be a fruitful
thing to look for.  In terms of endgame analysis, it may take 1 king + 5
pawns to force checkmate - I'm not sure - but I don't think mating is
possible with just 3.

The peculiar thing about this, is how the knight's move of traditional
chess finds a place for evaluating pawn structures in Ultima/Baroque.  It
relates to the desirability of distributing same-colored pawns equally
across a finite area of rectangularly gridded space.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Tue, Jul 19, 2005 08:34 PM UTC:
Unfortunately, I have not saved the games I have played against 0.8, but I think all what happened could be consequence of the deep search up to 9 moves and the 5 seconds per move, considering that Ultima and Opulent are games in which the mobility of pieces and the number of generated moves can be really big, and, additionally, evaluation is not as easy as in other games, in both games there are some pieces with almost the same value, and in both games some positional concepts are not well evaluated by Chess V, simply because it is not so easy to be performed by a program which has not been made 'on purpose' for these games. I suggest limit the search depth IN FUNCTION of the time used, perhaps depth 5 or 6 for 5 seconds per move is good enough in Ultima and Opulent. As for Ultima, Matthew is right, some structures of Pawns are favourable in many cases, but much more when there are not Long-Leapers in the other band scenario... and I suggest add a good penalty for an Immobilizer immobilized by a Chameleon, it is almost always a bad thing for the immobilized team. Some parameters and values may be revised a bit, but in general lines, I think that the game played by Chess V is still stronger to that of Zillions, also in the terms I tested. I´ll try to reproduce similar instances soon, if I have the time, and if there is success, I´ll send to you the saved moves.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2005 02:02 AM UTC:
The setting of I-Depth 9 is just the maximum depth.  The way it works is
that it searches all moves to a depth of 1, and then, if there's time, to
a depth of 2, and, if time, to a depth of 3, etc...  So it never hurts to
have the Max I-Depth set high.  The only reason that setting is there is
so that, if you want to do a fixed-depth search, you can set the I-Depth
to the depth you want, and set the time limit to something really high. 
And, strangely enough, searching to a depth of 1, then 2, 3, ..., n is
actually faster than going straight to depth n.  This technique is called
'Iterative Deepening', and is used by all chess programs.

Giving pincer pawns a bonus for being a knights-move away from others
might be a good idea.  I might give it a try sometime and see how it
works.

Ed Trice wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2005 03:45 PM UTC:
I just read through some of the comments on here about ChessV and Gothic
Chess. Some were not 100% on the mark. First of all, ChessV was given a
one-year Gothic Chess license from November 2004 to November 2005. ChessV
played in the first, bi-annual Gothic Chess Computer World Championship.
You can read more about this on chessville here:

http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/ComputerWorldChampionships.htm

There was also some discussion about the graphic which was displayed by
the ChessV engine. Greg is confusing two issues. I did contact him about
something regarding Gothic Chess, but it it was not the item he mentioned.
After his license expires and is not renewed, the subsequent versions of
ChessV could not contain a Gothic Chess setup, and that is all.

I also contacted somebody about an image shown on Wikkepedia under Gothic
Chess. It was ORIGINALLY one I had drawn and is widely in use. The one
that replaced it was a ChessV board's image of Gothic Chess.

Again, I believe the sands of time have led to Greg confusing issues. I
never said what was represented by him or others.

Matthew Montchalin wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2005 09:04 PM UTC:
When you talk about 5 or 6 seconds per turn, um, what kind of architecture is Chess V being run on? I'd think that space requirements are much more important than time requirements are. I apologize, but I have browsed here and there, and didn't quite notice a definitive statement as to what the exact hardware requirements for Chess V were. I'm naturally referring to Chess V running Ultima/Baroque in an environment all of its own, no phone lines involved, no other programs or applications eating up the available cycles (or semicycles) of execution. Even if it only requires 64 bytes to represent an 8x8 board, it helps to have some way of storing the moves leading up to that board, if you can't store the entire board by itself. Then set aside space for pointers with each pointer taking up 4 bytes so you can refer to an entire 32 bit address space (which is suficient for serious analysis). In attempting to make an Ultima/Baroque program on a 9x9 board, and starting from a single diagram thereof, I use up about 80K of RAM for every few tiers (or plies) worth of scrutiny (the 9x9 version of the game has the apparently innocuous Pusher and Puller pieces in it), so that may not be much memory to you, but my own code is very tight and efficient. When it comes to pruning the mini-max tree, it helps to avoid looking at moves that are undesirably similar. Since some moves are very 'similar' (inasmuch as they do not change the board much from turn to turn), the searches that I subject to the most scrutiny are those where a piece attempts to move as far as it can. For instance, if a Leaper - whether it is a Long Leaper or just a Single Leaper - moves to a place where its overall mobility is maximized, that is going to be the move that deserves the deepest investigation. To prove the point, see what happens when you pit two programs against each other, one of them preferring to examine the moves where the pieces consistently short-sheet themselves, opting for short moves when they have a choice, and those where the pieces usually move as far as they can. For instance, two entirely different personalities are at work when they come up with moves like 1. Pa2-a3, Pa7-a6, 2. Pb2-b3, Pb7-b6, 3. Pc2-c3, Pc7-c6 as opposed to a game like 1. Pa2-a6, Ph7-h3, 2. Pb2-b6, Pg7-g3, 3. Pc2-c6, Pf7-f3. The player that willingly short-sheets himself may be playing it safe, but he certainly isn't playing it adventurously. As for phobias and tropisms, it is a judgment call when a King must willingly go after an Immobilizer (for a coordination attack, as is usual, or a pinch, which is less usual), or an Immobilizer must flee from an Imitator (Chamaeleon). Is 25 percent really the proper amount of diminution to be suffered in calculating out a material score? How do we know that 20% or 33% isn't a better percentage? As I think someone else already pointed out, the piece values tend to change as the board grows emptier and emptier, so a sliding percentage might be better than an absolute percentage. Myself, I don't even use the 'percentage' idea, I just use an absolute plus or minus factor added to the positional score, and attempt to scope out another level or ply, even if it is incomplete, and hope that that is going to be enough.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2005 10:25 PM UTC:
<p>Matthew: I have discussed 5 second per turn because that was the criterion under which Roberto reported that my newest version under-performed the previous version. And his processor, 2.1 GHz Intel, is very close to my own (2.0 GHz Intel.) But, yes, to really to compare apples to apples, one must measure with fixed-depth and not with fixed-time.</p> <p>Regarding the base-line requirements to be able to run ChessV, I can honestly say I don't know what the bare minimum would be. But, I would not recommend running it at all on any machine with less than 256 megabyes of ram!!! This may sound like a lot, but 256 MB presently costs about $20. If memory serves me, the Atari ST had one-half of one megabyte of ram (512KB.) To try to implement something as computing-intensive and cutting-edge as a computer Ultima program on a computer that is twenty years old is like trying to climb mount Everest barefoot, with nothing but a Swiss Army Knife and duct-tape.</p> <p>I do not wish to discourage you from persuing your goal, as I think all people should develop software for their own fulfillment whether or not anyone else cares to run it. Rather, I seek to make you aware (in case you are not already) that ChessV was written for a machine which is about 4000 times faster, and has over 500 times the memory, and thus, the programming techniques which I use are not applicable at all to your situation.</p> <p>In your post, you describe selective move searching. This is a technique of reducing computing requirements by only considering some of the legal moves. ChessV does not use selective-search at all. This is a technique which was necessary in all computer Chess programs until the late 80's. However, now that computers are fast enough to study all possible moves and still reach a reasonable depth, all modern Chess programs study all moves, and are the better for it. You can reduce the size of your move-tree by skipping moves, but there are always, always situations where you overlook a superior moves to the moves you consider. If you can avoid selective-search, you should. NOTE: even with modern computers, selective search is still required in games like Shogi, which have a high branching-factor, and have no stable (quiescent) positions. ChessV will need to support selective-search if games such as Shogi and Chessgi are ever to be supported.</p>

Matthew Montchalin wrote on Thu, Jul 21, 2005 05:58 AM UTC:
I've already got a handful of those 256 meg thumb-drives, too, and I love
the direction technology is taking them.  Flashram is the wave of the
future.  Unfortunately, I have had more than my share of bad luck with
Intel systems, and the rate at which my last few PC compatibles crashed
makes me view the benchmarks and forecasts they've come up with, with
suspicion.  (It is rumored that thumbdrives rarely last more than a year
from the time you first buy them, and put them to use, hot swaps and
all.)
 Nobody is forcing you to boot up an ST emulator just to try out my code,
just bear in mind that not everybody has a computer that you consider
state of the art.

As for generating a mini-max tree, how deep should you go before you
start
pruning?  I know you recommend a 9 ply search (just under 5 full moves),
and I have nothing against that.  In an endgame consisting of four or
five
pieces, it sounds perfectly reasonable to do a 30 or 40 ply search - the
space required is far less than at start, you just have to look into the
possibility that you are revisiting a board that you've already
generated
somewhere higher up (earlier) in the tree - maybe with the tempos swapped
-
but you can save a ton of space that way.

Say, from the sample Ultima games here at www.chessvariants.org, I
wasn't
entirely sure why the players were holding back and playing 1. Pg2-g4 or
1.
Pf2-f4 (recounting from memory, I may be wrong, they were only seizing a
couple of squares of territory) instead of pushing the pawns up to the
limit possible, like 1. Pf2-f6 or 1. Pg2-g6 and let them bite the dust if
that's what it's cracked up to be.  As principles go, is it really that
dangerous to hog space - even throw pawns away - for the sake of reaching
a game that is that much more open?  In any case, whether the Leaper is
capable of single or multi-leaps, losing a Leaper is going to be the most
momentous occasion in the game.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2005 05:48 PM UTC:

Version 0.81 Released

An important update, this has several bug-fixes and performance enhancements to correct problems reported in version 0.8. This version should be significantly smarter about how it plays.

This version also adds support for Fergus Duniho's Eurasian Chess. NOTE: this is by far the most computing-intensive game added yet, not just because of the number of pieces, but more importantly because of the cannon-movers. With cannon-movers on the board, it is much harder to determine which captures are winning captures, and thus many, many more moves must be examined in the quiescent-search. Any less than 10-15 seconds per move and it is not likely to play very well.

Download from sourceforge.net here


Roberto Lavieri wrote on Mon, Jul 25, 2005 01:51 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Eurasian seems nice. Yes, 15-20 sec., at least, are needed... ULTIMA detail, revise, please: I have played a brief test (5 sec. per move), and I could not capture an immobilized King with a Chameleon. I have to make more tests to see what happened, I have not saved the first game test. I think you also need 15-20 sec. per move in Ultima for better play.

ace wrote on Tue, Aug 15, 2006 08:12 AM UTC:Average ★★★
I love this chess program but there are dozens of bugs. The worst ones are the crashing of the program itself and loading saved games cause the computer's pieces to be invisable(can show a screenshot) So I never get a chance to play to the end :(

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Aug 15, 2006 12:13 PM UTC:
Thank you for the feedback. I have been working hard on a new version and it should be out very soon. It has been over a year since the last version because I've been trying to test everything throughly. I'll post here when version 0.9 is released.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Aug 27, 2006 11:04 PM UTC:

Version 0.9 Released

For those who don't know, ChessV is a freeware, open-source program for playing Chess variants. It has been over a year since the last release, and this is a major upgrade. This version has support for over 50 variants, and allows users to add in their own variants! Of course, it also fixes numerous bugs.

New games: Support added for Great Shatranj, Odin's Rune Chess, Chess 480, Cagilostro's Chess, Embassy Chess, Emperor's Game, Janus Kamil Chess, Ladorean Chess, Univers Chess, Schoolbook Chess, Modern Kamil, Roman Chess, Royal Court, and Shatranj Kamil.

New features: It is now possible to design your own variants (within limits.) This ability is different that that of Zillions, however, in that you don't program an entire game from scratch. Rather, you derive your game from one of the built-in games, and specify only how it differs. This makes it fairly easy to add support for new games, but it is limited. It is not anywhere near as flexible as Zillions. On the upside, however, ChessV will play any game that it allows you to make with a very high level of skill. See the file extensability.doc for info on how to add new variants. Other new features include the ability to use textures for squares instead of only solid colors. Several marble textures are included.

Download: Download this program from the project's home on sourceforge.net here. You only need to download the main file (ChessV_0_9.zip), not the source code unless it interests you. There is no setup program - just unzip and run. If you have an old version of ChessV already, just unzip this on top of the existing versions.

Please report any bugs you encounter. You may post them here, or email them to me (you can get my e-mail from the chessvariants.org member's index.)


Sam Trenholme wrote on Mon, Aug 28, 2006 08:30 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I'm very very happy to see this new release! I was worried that ChessV was abandoned (the last ChessV public release had a bug that made it not play chess as well as it could). This is a great program; I'm glad it supports my game (Schoolbook) since playing Zillions has been getting old.

If you're interested, I can help by having a command-line version that can compile uisng the standard Gnu/UNIX toolchain--it would be nice to compile this program on something besides Windows + MSVC. I think that would encourage more developers (I'm a Linux developer who makes Windows ports with MingW32).

Again, thanks for the great work Greg. Good to see you back--I missed you!

- Sam


Derek Nalls wrote on Mon, Aug 28, 2006 10:30 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Yes, welcome back.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Mon, Aug 28, 2006 11:28 PM UTC:
Thanks, Sam.  ChessV, thankfully, is not dead.  It had just been so long
since the last release, that I wanted to take the time to make sure that
the next release was a major step forward.  Yeah, the 0.8x versions had a
nasty bug that resulted is the occasional really bad move.  That has been
fixed, along with a dozen or so other miscellaneous bugs.

In addition to supporting the rules for Schoolbook, if you look in the
openings directory, you will see a small opening book.  Although it only
has a few lines of play in it, each move was calculated extremely deeply
using several very powerful computers I have at work.  A few days worth of
CPU time went into it, although, that being said, it is just a start ... 
(In addition to Schoolbook, a similar effort has gone into making opening
books for other 10x8 variants, primarily Grotesque, Ladorean, and
Univers.)

A note about opening books:  The opening books are just text files, and
while the format should be pretty self-explanatory, it occurs to me that
there is one thing that hasn't been documented and is worth noting.  Some
moves in the opening books are preceeded with a question-mark.  The
question-mark denotes an inferior move, and the computer will not make
that move.  The point of including it is so that if the human makes that
move, the computer will know the correct response.

Regarding porting to other operating systems:  I am very interested in
seeing ChessV ported to other platforms, primarily Linux.  This has always
interested me, but I have very little knowledge about other platforms. 
Still, I made a few design decisions specifically for the purpose of
making such a port easier.  For one thing, I did not use Microsoft
Foundation Classes, or any other Windows-centric class library.  ChessV
uses only standard Win32 calls, and I called as few different functions as
possible.  Sound, animation, and other bells-and-wistles were deliberately
left out to make the code more portable.  Also, all calls to Windows
functions are preceeded with :: (which is unnecessary because these
functions are global anyway, but I did it so that if you someone searches
for ' ::' it will turn up all calls to Windows functions in one shot.) 
Finally, I wrote some classes to be a thin wrapper encapsulating some of
the Windows graphics objects, like pens and brushes, so that the code
would only need to be modified in one place, but I must admit that I
didn't do nearly as much of this as I would like.
So, yes, I would be happy for any help you could provide to make ChessV
more portable.  I do not know much (if anything) about MingW32, though... 
Does it only allow one to port console applications, or does it emulate
some of the GUI functions as well?

Thanks again for the positive feedback!
Greg

Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 01:51 AM UTC:
Excellent! I've enjoyed playing this; that it plays opening pawn moves
alone puts it ahead of Zillions. The only part I don't like is that it
keeps beating me. Great to see this out. Thanks. Joe
ps: love the shatranj section!

carlos carlos wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 09:01 AM UTC:
hey greg, help me out. i downloaded the whole zip thing. then i click on the exe. file and choose a game... the board comes up. there are no pieces! i tried a few different games...

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 11:59 AM UTC:
The files are in folders within the zip file. When you unzipped it, it should preserve the folder names, but it is possible to turn that off. Look at the directory you unzipped it to. There should be a subdirectory called 'images' and then subdirectories under that for the different piece sets. If all your images are out in the main directory then that's your problem...

carlos carlos wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 12:50 PM UTC:
There should be a subdirectory called 'images' and then subdirectories
under that for the different piece sets.

Ok, I checked that and that's right. the images are in subds under
images, they're not out in the main directory.

maybe i still don't get it.  is there something else that i can try and
fix?

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 03:16 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Admirable

Dan Kelly wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 04:21 PM UTC:
Yes when I unzipped it, the same thing happened to me, all the image files
were being replaced, then nothing came up when I launched the program.
Here is what to do to fix it. 

1. Double click the chessV.zip file.
2. If using Winzip, you have to hit the 'extract' button.
3. This brings up a window asking you where you want the files to go.
Make
sure you check the 'Use folder names' box on the bottom right! 

It seems to me this shouldn't even be an option it should always do
this.

Anyway that will extract ChessV files into all the right places.

Sam Trenholme wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 08:00 PM UTC:
As for extratracting ChessV, it's a lot better to extract it using Windows XP's built-in .zip extractor. Basically, since I don't have Winzip, I just double click on the ChessV zip file, which will open up a window with a folder called 'ChessV'. I copy this folder (right click, copy) and paste it in the C:\ folder. This gives me a ChessV folder that I can play ChessV from.

Winzip has a way of destroying all of the subfolders that a .zip file has; this will break ChessV. The solution is simple: Don't use Winzip. WinXP's .zip extractor is simpler, better, and cheaper.

- Sam


📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 10:31 PM UTC:
Carlos carlos:  Hmmm... Your folder structure is appearing, but you still
aren't seeing any images.  What version of windows are you running?

One thing that you could try, is creating a shortcut to ChessV.exe.  Then
edit that shortcut by right-clicking and selecting 'properties.'  Then,
in the text box labeled 'start in' make sure it has the proper path to
ChessV.exe.  Then run it with the shortcut.  The idea being that you are
trying to make sure that the current directory for the ChessV process is
the correct one...  It looks for all images (and include files, and
opening books, etc) in subdirectories relative to the current directory.

Failing that, more radical experimentation will be required...  But we'll
get it working.

carlos carlos wrote on Wed, Aug 30, 2006 03:33 PM UTC:
ok! the first suggestion was right after all... it looks cool. i'm gonna try a few games out.

Derek Nalls wrote on Wed, Aug 30, 2006 07:07 PM UTC:
I notice that your documentation accompanying the ChessV 0.9 program is a
Microsoft Word file (*.doc).

If you, as an author, prefer an Adobe Acrobat file (*.pdf) which preserves
the exact graphic representation of the document as you saw it and wrote it
(without any possible font substitutions), then I would be glad to send you
my Adobe Acrobat 4.0 (Standard) Full on 1 CD which I have recently replaced
with Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Standard Full.

Most readers (myself included) prefer *.pdf files because they open faster
and are very flexible upon display.

I think it is probably compatible with whatever version of Microsoft
Windows NT you are using.

If you issue a mailing address for you to me privately via my E-mail
address, then I can send it to you immediately USPS.  Rest assured, it is
authentic software, still in perfect condition.

Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on Thu, Aug 31, 2006 12:20 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Great program, I don't know why I didn't download it sooner.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Aug 31, 2006 05:13 PM UTC:
Derek: Thanks for the offer. Actually, I have Acrobat, I just didn't get around to converting it. I will post it in both formats with the next version (the documentation isn't quite finished anyway...)

ChessVthesameasthepr wrote on Sun, Sep 3, 2006 04:09 AM UTC:

Hi, Ed.

Do we know it's the ChessV program that's being implemented in these games? Couldn't that just be someone's handle? I mean, 'ChessV' might not even know about the ChessV program.

If we don't know, it could be proven one way or the other easily enough, I imagine, by going through some of the games and finding out whether the moves accord with that which the ChessV program would make, right?


Sam Trenholme wrote on Mon, Sep 4, 2006 03:01 PM UTC:
One feature I really like about ChessV is the 'test this position' feature. This is a veryuseful feature for helping build up an opening book for my Schoolbook variant; I've been spending all of last weeking using ChessV to help me come up with some opening lines in Schoolbook Chess.

I'll post some basic opening theory for Schoolbook later on this week. As a start, I like the way white's position looks after 1. f4 Nd6 2. g4

- Sam


📝Greg Strong wrote on Mon, Sep 4, 2006 04:32 PM UTC:
Sam: You may have figured this out already, but in case you didn't (or in case anyone else is interested) ... After you run the 'test this position,' it ranks the moves. Then, if you run it again to a greater depth, but tell it to restrict to the first x moves, it uses the first x moves from the previous test. So, you can, for example, test all moves to a depth of 5, then test the best 12 to a depth of 7, then the best 6 of those to a depth of 9, etc. Glad that you are making use of it; calculating opening books is exactly what I wrote that feature for.

Dan Kelly wrote on Mon, Sep 4, 2006 06:12 PM UTC:
Hi,

Can someone explain that opening book testing feature to me? It sounds
like a great idea! I want to do an opening book for another variant and
I'd love to figure out how to do this. I also don't understand why
you'd hafta restrict moves, cann someone explain this to? BTW I am most
interested in Janus Chess.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Mon, Sep 4, 2006 08:26 PM UTC:
Dan: You don't need to restrict moves; it is just a way to save time. You don't need to calculate every move to some really deep depth if you know that move of them are definitely bad (like pushing edge pawns.) So, it goes something like this... select 'test this position' - set I-Depth to something like 5, and set the maximum number of moves to a big number (like 100) so that everything will be tested. Click ok, and then be patient ... What it is doing is making each move and then running an I-Depth 5 search on the resulting position to determine a value for this move. Then it undoes that move and tries the next. When it is done it will present a list of all moves tested, and the resulting evaluation. A depth-5 search isn't deep enough to determine which moves are the best, but it is good enough to rule out really bad moves. Then, to test the 'good' moves to a deeper depth, select 'test this position' again. Turn up the depth, limit the moves to the top 12 or so, and click ok. Then repeat it again, testing the top 6 positions or so to a depth of 9 or greater. When it completes, any moves which are within 50 points or so of the best move should be added to the opening book. Of course, you could just test all moves to a depth of 9 from the start, but that wastes a LOT of time. The 'test this position' search uses a more intensive search in several ways than the normal search to ensure the best results. But this means that it is quite slow. If your computer has a lot of ram, before you start testing, change the computer settings, and allocate more memory for the transposition table and evaluation cache. If you allocate more memory than you can spare, though, the operating system will start swapping to disk, and that will slow things down to a crawl, so use the task manager to check your free physical memory first. Any more than 512MB for the transposition table is totally pointless, and any more than 256MB for the evaluation cache is probably pointless. Also, when setting the table sizes, use powers of two. The size of the tables must be a power of two, so if you enter 100MB, ChessV is just going to round it down to 64.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Tue, Sep 5, 2006 06:39 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
There are a few bugs in the program. Some of the 'Chess with Different
Armies' armies don't work, like the Andromidan Invaders and the Almost
Chess army, instead of them you get the standard army.

And in Chess with Augmented Knights the knights are not able to move
because they're pinned (!), and the Standard Knight doesn't have a
picture of his own.

and sorry for trouble.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Sep 7, 2006 10:50 PM UTC:
Abdul-Rahman:  Thank you for the bug report.  Very good observations! 
These were minor problems that have been corrected.  I am also adding a
couple of tiny optimizations, and a new game or two, and perhaps a couple
more texture options for the squares, and then I will release 0.9.1.  You
can expect it to be released within the week.

NOTE:  The problem with the Andromedan Invaders has been resolved by
removing that army.  I created that army only for the purposes of testing
strange pieces used in other games, but they were never balanced in
strength with the FIDE army.  I might turn them into a real army and
reactivate them again someday.

Please continue to report any bugs that you discover.

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on Sat, Sep 23, 2006 07:42 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Oh, i posted a few weeks ago, but it seems when all those dumb 'my chess
program is better than yours' posts were deleted, my post went too. 
Ok, so, what a brilliant program! And it's free! And best of all, for me
anyway, it plays Great Shatranj, and it plays very good with pawns too.
Hopefully, this program will just get better and better, congrats Greg!!

Dan Kelly wrote on Sat, Sep 23, 2006 10:16 PM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

Stephen Stockman wrote on Sat, Sep 23, 2006 10:30 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Yes, Dan Kelly is a good chess player in my estimation, he beat me yesterday, and I am challenging him to another game today

Sam Trenholme wrote on Sun, Sep 24, 2006 12:01 AM UTC:
If you have a copy of the saved games where you beat ChessV, I know Greg would love to see them to see where ChessV went wrong.

- Sam


Dan Kelly wrote on Sun, Sep 24, 2006 12:18 AM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

Sam Trenholme wrote on Sun, Sep 24, 2006 12:38 AM UTC:
ChessV won't save games unless one explicitly uses 'save game' to save the game; in fact, ChessV sometimes doesn't save a game correctly. :)

It's still a work in progress, but is an excellent program.


📝Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Sep 24, 2006 12:44 AM UTC:
Hi Dan,
Thanks, it would be interesting to see the game.  Let me know where you
think it went wrong.  It is quite possible that it involves the quiescent
search.

Dan Kelly wrote on Sun, Sep 24, 2006 02:19 AM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

Sam Trenholme wrote on Mon, Sep 25, 2006 03:30 PM UTC:
OK, I've looked over Dan's game. The problem seems to be that, for Janus Chess, ChessV values pawns too much over development. This will be a little tricky to fix. Basically, ChessV can play a large number of 10x8 chess games, some of which have pieces weak enough that a pawn is, in fact, more valuable than the development of three pieces. Greg's only option is to add a new variable for each game ChessV supports: How valuable development is. This will vary, depending on the game being played.

Dan played well. I personally think 5. ... Ah6 is a good try for black to both hold on to the pawn and to defend against the gambit.

As another note, if you give ChessV enough time to think about the move, it sees that white can force a mate after 15. Bf2.

- Sam


Dan Kelly wrote on Mon, Sep 25, 2006 10:08 PM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

📝Greg Strong wrote on Mon, Sep 25, 2006 11:20 PM UTC:
Sam and Dan,

Thank you both for the time that you have spent looking into this and
typing in your findings.  I appreciate it, and, with research, it will
lead to a stronger program.

It is true that development by itself doesn't guarantee anything. 
However, computer chess programs consider as many moves as they have time
to, and each sequence of moves leads to a positon.  The computer must then
evaluate that position (or, if pieces are still hanging, it plays out
winning captures before it evaluates,) but eventually a position must be
quantified with a number - the more positive the number, the better the
position for white, the more negative, the better for black.  Experience
can tell a human player a lot about what is good and what is bad, but
trying to program in too many specific scenarios makes a program worse,
because it takes too much CPU time to evaluate, and the more CPU time you
spend on evaluation, the less moves you can consider.

Lots of things can help ChessV.  Obviously, a good opening book would
help.  I am working on an opening book for Janus Chess, but it takes time.
 Also, evaluation of position gives pieces a bonus or penalty based on the
square it occupies (a piece-square-table.)  Such tables can be different
for each type of piece, and they can be different in the opening vs.
midgame vs. endgame.  Clearly the piece-square-tables for Janus Chess (and
all other 10x8 variants for that matter) could be improved.  I'll look
into the current tables, and, based on the game Dan has posted, I'll try
some experimentation.  Finally, I think that there is probably a bug
buried somewhere deep in the move-search functions that is proving very
difficult to isolate ...

Thanks again to you both.  I'll study what you have posted and keep you
posted!

Sam Trenholme wrote on Tue, Sep 26, 2006 09:55 PM UTC:
I just want to say that I'm enjoying Dan's game a lot. I enjoy watching his playing style and the thinking behind his moves. There are a lot of Chess variants here on this server; however, is fairly rare to have a chess variant played as well as Dan plays them. (We also have John Vehre around)

- Sam


Dan Kelly wrote on Wed, Sep 27, 2006 12:25 PM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

Dan Kelly wrote on Wed, Sep 27, 2006 02:36 PM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

Sam Trenholme wrote on Wed, Sep 27, 2006 04:13 PM UTC:
I was playing around with ChessV and was able to set up a preset to modify it so that it would not be so greedy in the opening of Janus chess. Basically, with ChessV, it's possible to change the values of the pieces. What I did was make all of the pieces have one third of their normal value. For example, ChessV feels a pawn is worth 1000 points, a rook is 5000 points, and a queen is 9000 points.

What I did was make the pawn worth on 333 points, the rook only worth 1666 points, the queen worth 3000 points, and so on. What this does is make factors not directly having to do with material, such as the position of the pieces, three times more valuable. Once I did this, this is how ChessV handled Dan's gambit play:

1. Ah3 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nd3. Stock ChessV tries too hard to hold on to the pawn here: 3. ... g5?. However, by tweaking ChessV to only be one-third as greedy, ChessV responds with the much more sensible 3. ... f5 or 3. ... Ng6, depending on how much time we give ChessV to think about the position.

My experiments show that tweaking like this, when done for the course of the entire game, will make ChessV make some unsound sacrifices in the late mid-game and end-game, resulting in the 'stock' ChessV winning the game. However, if I have the tweaked version of ChessV play white only for the first ten moves, than give the stock pieces to the normal ChessV, the result is the same as giving both sides the stock pieces: White wins the game.

For Greg's info, this testing was done at an I-depth of 7 and with pruning and razoring disabled.

If Dan is interested, I'm willing to see how well he does against the tweaked ChessV (for the first ten moves, anyway).

- Sam


Gary Gifford wrote on Wed, Sep 27, 2006 04:25 PM UTC:
I saw John Vehre's name mentioned in here a few times. John is a USCF Chess Master and is great at many variants. He won the Correspondance Championship a ways back for Gothic or Grand Chess, I forget which. I met John at Kent State many years ago and played chess with him on Monday nights. We traveled to the Collegiate Chess Championship together (Toledo Ohio) and also traveled together to A Cleveland, Ohio Chess event. John is a great guy ... by the way, I have never won a game against him.

Sam Trenholme wrote on Wed, Sep 27, 2006 04:48 PM UTC:
John Vehre, as it turns out, is the Grand Chess world champion. One thing I would like to see is John's Grand Chess columns for Abstract Games Magazine published on the web, since that magazine appears to be defunct.

What I have published of John's (with his permission, of course) is his notes on one of his 2001 Grand Chess world championship games.

- Sam


📝Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Sep 27, 2006 08:22 PM UTC:
Thanks, Sam. This is very helpful. I should have a new version out by this weekend at the latest. I've made a number of improvements that result in it reaching a given I-Depth almost twice as fast in the openings of 10x8 games, and about 20% faster in larger board games. I have also made improvements to the piece-square-tables. I will test with positional values greatly boosted in the opening, so as to accomplish the same thing as cutting the values of the pieces.

Dan Kelly wrote on Wed, Sep 27, 2006 10:12 PM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

Dan Kelly wrote on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 12:06 AM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

Dan Kelly wrote on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 12:39 AM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

📝Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 12:52 AM UTC:

Dan, I've done some more significant tweaking today, primarily aimed at making sure it doesn't fall too far behind in development just for a pawn or two. It now makes better moves in the situations in your previous game. How much better it is overall, I cannot say, but it is almost certainly much better than Sam's modified version, as I have made a number of improvements in the last 2 weeks. If you're up for a game against the current iteration, just start a game with Game Courier, and let me know what I-Depth you would like (I have enough computing power to go up to 12 or 13, but I would recommend more like 9 or 10.) Thanks!


Dan Kelly wrote on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 02:17 AM UTC:
[Dan Kelly deleted all of his comments]

📝Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 12:43 PM UTC:
Dan: I would like to send you an e-mail, but your address is not listed. If you don't mind, please shoot me an e-mail so that I'll have your address. Mine is listed if you click on my name.

Sam Trenholme wrote on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 04:50 PM UTC:
Since this post was deleted, here is an interesting game played against ChessV with Janus chess:

Zillions Save Game File Version 0.02 HH
RulesFile=C:\Zillions\3rd_party\largechess\Chess,_Large.zrf
VariantName=Janus Chess
1. Janus i1 - h3
1. Pawn e7 - e5
2. Pawn f2 - f4
2. Pawn e5 x f4
3. Knight c1 - d3
3. Pawn g7 - g5
4. Pawn e2 - e3
4. Pawn f4 x e3
5. Bishop g1 x e3
5. Pawn h7 - h6
6. Knight h1 - g3
6. Knight c8 - d6
7. Janus b1 - c3
7. Bishop g8 - h7
8. Bishop d1 - h5
8. Pawn i7 - i6
9. Janus h3 - g4
9. Queen f8 - g8
10. Queen f1 - e2
10. King e8 - f8 @ f8 0 0
11. Knight d3 - c5
11. Bishop h7 - f5
12. Knight g3 x f5
12. Pawn i6 x h5
13. Janus c3 - e5
13. Pawn h5 x g4
14. Knight c5 x d7
14. King f8 - e8 @ e8 0 0
15. Bishop e3 - f2
15. Bishop d8 - e7
16. Janus e5 x d6
16. King e8 x d7 @ d7 0 0
17. Queen e2 x e7
17. King d7 - c6 @ c6 0 0
18. Knight f5 - d4
18. King c6 - d5 @ d5 0 0
19. Queen e7 - e5

- Sam


M Winther wrote on Fri, Sep 29, 2006 08:12 PM UTC:
A match was played between Zillions and ChessV (v.0.9), at 15s per
move on a 1.6 Ghz computer. ChessV is white in the odd games.
The result was 4 - 4. Zillions won both in Janus Chess. ChessV
calculates deeper, but Zillions's evaluation function seems better.
I suppose ChessV is stronger in the more technical variants, such
as Kinglet Chess. Probably the result will vary much depending
on computer and time used. My own zrf was used for this match.
Several games were quite interesting. The games are included
in the zip-file.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/capablanca.htm


Zillions vs. ChessV
_________________________

Janus Chess: 1 - 0, 1 - 0

Capablanca's: 1/2 - 1/2, 0 - 1

Bird's Chess: 1/2 - 1/2, 0 - 1

Embassy Chess: 1 - 0, 0 - 1

Mats W

Sam Trenholme wrote on Sun, Oct 1, 2006 02:32 AM UTC:
On my old PIII 450, I had Zillions play Chess V with both sides getting 60 seconds a move. Both engines played Schoolbook chess. ChessV won:

1. Af3 Nd6 2. Ng3 f5 3. Nd3 Nhf7 4. h3 e6 5. BI3 h6 6. Ah5 Bh7 7. Ke1?

Zillions, for mysterious reasons, made a meaningless king move.

7. ... I6 8. Af3 MI7 9. Bxd8 Qxd8 10. Nc5 Ng5 11. Ae5 Nf7 12. Ad4 Ad6 13. Mj3 Qe7

ChessV now has Zillions on the run. With a better pawn structure and two more pieces developed, black has more than equalized and now controls the game.

14. Nd3

At this point, Black can force the win of a piece. The moves to do so are left as an exercise for the reader.

In the game played, White never recovered and Black (ChessV) eventually won.


M Winther wrote on Sun, Oct 1, 2006 07:44 AM UTC:
Awkward play by Zillions in the opening. But Zillions can easily be made to 
make good pawn opening moves by introducing rewards for such moves. 
As soon as Zillions has moved two pawns he continues to move pawns and 
pieces in a natural way. One can also introduce a reward for castling, and 
punish early queen moves. If one makes these additions to the code then 
Zillions plays chess very humanlike and positionally interesting. The effect is 
remarkable. Zillions's style is quite humanlike because it plays such a 
varied game of chess. It also understands to attack with the pawn on the 
flanks. It is sad that Zillions programmers don't use these tricks because 
there are so many implementations where Zillions plays too much with the 
pieces in the opening, which makes the games less interesting, and the 
play much weaker. You can have a look at the code in my zrf's. In most 
cases you can simply copy it, although it can certainly be improved in many 
ways. Note that I have often also added links from the corner squares. This 
simple trick is a good idea because it discourages Zillions from wasting 
king moves to the corner squares, something which is even more important 
in the Gustavian case.

📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Oct 3, 2006 02:14 AM UTC:

Version 0.9.1 released

new games: This version adds support for a new class of games - the diagonal games, Diagonal Chess, Diamond Chess, and Legan's Game (all from Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants.) These games allow you to view the board normally, or rotated 45 degrees, for a more appropriate viewing. Also, support for new 10x8 games Optimized Chess by Derek Nalls and New Chancellor Chess by David Paulowich.

new features: New square textures, and a new option to customize the 10x8 Capablanca-like games. It was already possible to customize these games by making a SGF file, but now there is a user-interface to specify the rules you want, and you are given an option to save a SGF into your include directory, making the game a permanent addition to your ChessV installation. An option to replace Chancellors and Archbishops with Ministers and High-priestesses is also present to allow one to play Christine Bagly-Jones's Capablanca Shatranj variants. Just click on Capablanca Chess variants from the start screen, and check 'Customize the Selected Game'

performance: many performance enhancements speed things up 10-40 percent, depending on the game. 10x8 variants are much faster, and have much smarter evaluation of positions.

Enjoy! Download from the project's home at sourceforge.net


100 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.