Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I is pretty hard to judge if your other armies are anywhere near balanced with the FIDE ('Human') army, without computer assistance. Because of the unconventional Pawns. Any uncertainty in their value will be multiplied by 8.

It seems all the pieces you use are well within the capabilities of Fairy-Max. So it should be easy to configure Fairy-Max to play this variant.

Yes, the Pawns are the most dangerous because they are very complex and progressive units, especially with pawn's chains in any different forms.
But I can't configure Fairy-Max to play this variant because of problems with configure linear-leaps (unicorn/werewolf, wyvern/hunter). It has very strange instructions and unclear mechanics of configuring complex moves, even for a programmer.
For example, if I put a move like 15,FFFF070 (-16) then a piece can move from g8 through f7 to e7. If put 15,1070 (+1) then a piece can move from g8 through f7 to... d6. But any other tries with -1 and +16 do nothing. I need help for it.

Do you know any online chess service supporting illegal moves (free moves by agreement between the players themselves)? It would be the best for playing many non-classic variants without any programming (no AI analysis, no AI player, no AI tips - but the natural, origin wood form of a chess doesn't have these options too).

Hi Dmitry,

This is an interesting looking invention you have here.  I like the concept of the game and the principals you followed.  It has led to a promising game.  Of course, something so radical will require testing.  The only thing that is unfortunate is the bishop "blink". I think the Elven pawns may be powerful enough that the extra blink might be unnecessary.

Regarding playing, your best bet is Game Courier on this site.  You can open one of the Chess presets, click Edit to modify it, and just erase all the code in the seven boxes at the bottom to stop it from enforcing any rules.  Then, in the first box, change the name from Chess to Asymmetric Chess, enter your user id and password, and click Save.  It will give you a link that you can then use to send out invitations to play.

Cheers,
Greg

to Greg Strong
Hi Gregory!
Thanks for the feedback.
The blink is added only to the Phoenix (Archbishop) not the Hunters (Bishops).
Adding the blink wasn't a simple decision, but at the current moment I think it is necessary (and is a minimal fee for the balance). A Phoenix without the blink (classical Archbishop) has an estimated value 8.2 (instead of 10.6), a half pawn less than a Dragon (Chancellor). And a Fairy promoting to non-blinking Phoenix has an estimated value 1.25 (instead of 1.33). Summary a blink removing makes elves 3.0 classical pawns weaker. It will be wonderful if such elves with so much estimating weakness will be balanced. But now I believe to these estimatings more than to a wonderful equality.

As an alternative variant without the blink, there is possible to buff the Pegasus, from 2 up to 3 range (leaping) but this is controversial and gives more advantages to elves (according to my estimates extended Pegasus has value of 4.9 instead of 3.1)

"For example, if I put a move like 15,FFFF070 (-16) then a piece can move from g8 through f7 to e7. If put 15,1070 (+1) then a piece can move from g8 through f7 to... d6. But any other tries with -1 and +16 do nothing. I need help for it."

I agree, for pieces that change direction the definitions are awful. But the latest Fairy-Max version (5.0b) actually improved on that. Rather than having to specify the step change in hexadecimal in the upper bits of the move rights, (which is how it is interally stored) it allows you to simply write the secondary step as an (optional) 3rd element in the move definition. So 17,3,1 would now be a Griffon move, a slide that first steps diagonally (17), and then continues orthogonally (1). Fairy-Max itself then calculates what bits have to be changed to make a 1 from a 17.

The 'Skip Rook' in a sense is also a 'bent slider' like the Griffon, except that the move step does not change direction, but only length. The first step of the slide is that of a Dababbah, then the slide continues with single steps. The description of moves that do this would look like 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 etc. The 'lame Knights' move description would be like 1,43,17 (blockable orthogonally) or 17,43,1 (blockable diagonally).
 

I might equip future versions of Fairy-Max with a compiler for Betza notation, so that the piece definitions can be given in this form. That wouldmake it a lot more user-friendly.

to H. G. Muller
Thanks you for your program and advices!

I put this variant and it works but I need to configure pieces' images: elvish (black in this case, and white for future presets) bishop and knight must exchange their starting places.

I use classic preset (images), but maybe it's better to draw alt. queens as chancellor and archbishop, but I don't know how to configure it.

// Asymmetric Chess (Orc-Elf)
Game: normal # PNBRQ.........Kpnbrq.........k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 11 10 9 3 10 11 8
p:125 -16,24 -16,7 -1,5 1,5
p:130 15,24 17,24 15,7 17,7
K:-1  1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
N:430 1,043,-15 1,043,17 16,043,17 16,043,15 -1,043,15 -1,043,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,043,-15
B:280 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:860 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:310 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7
Q:1060 15,103 17,103 -15,103 -17,103 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
N:440 17,043,1 17,043,16 15,043,16 15,043,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,043,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,043,1
B:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15

Update: randomly get exchanging of the black knight and bishop, but how to get chancellor and archbishop images, it's a riddle...

I tried your game definition, and it needed the following fixes:

• The first was my bad: the lame Knights did not require 43 move rights, but 70 move rights, because otherwise they would be able to make the W or F step already with full rights (3), and the secondary step would only toggle the termination bit (4) on. But the W or F step should not have any rights (0).
• The piece ID of N and B equivalents in the piece lines was made lower case; this makes them seek the center. Otherwise Fairy-Max becomes very tardy developing them. I also did that for the Elvish Queen, as in Capablanca Chess the Archbishop also seemed to be worth more when seeking the center. Not sure if this is also true for the cylinder version, however. Perhaps the short Rook should also be center seeking to let Fairy-Max make better use of it.
• I changed the name into orc-elf; it should now appear under that name in WinBoard's New Variant dialog
• I appended " # fairy" to the game line to specify 'fairy' as parent variant. This variant implements normal Chess rules w.r.t. promotion, check, stalemate, castling etc., and is thus a good parent for most western Chess variants. Because it is a 'catchall' variant where WinBoard has no prior notion of the initial setup, WinBoard will pay attetion to the engine's setup command even when legality testing is on,which is another advantage.
• I appended Betza move definitions to the game definition, which don'tmean anything to Fairy-Max, but are sent to WinBoard at the start of the game, to make WinBoard aware of how the pieces move. This enables WinBoard to highlight target squares in human-engine games, and properly disambiguate the move notation. (It is of course bad design that two independent, and therefore possibly conflicting move descriptions are needed. But the ability of WinBoard to accept piece definitions from the engine is a recent enhancement, and was then added to Fairy-Max as an afterthought. Ideally Fairy-Max would derive one set of move definitions from the other.)
• I played a bit with the 'pieceToChar' string in the game line. Each position in this string corresponds to a WinBoard piece glyph, and specifies the piece it has to be used for. The first half of the string is for white pieces, the second half for black. The first five for each color are standard symbols for PNBRQ, the last one for K. In between come upto 17 other piece glyphs built into WinBoard. I selected some of those that seemed applicable. (Masked knight and unicorn for the lame Knights, commonly used pictograms for Archbishop and Chancellor. WinBoard does not have enough rookish or pawnish glyphs, however, so the 'Skip-Rook' is still depicted as an orthodox Rook. Of course it is a matter of taste whether you want all pieces to look different or just use the orthodox images. This whole issue can also be solved purely on the GUI level, by configuring use of (and providing) external images in WinBoard.)

______________________________________________________________________

// Asymmetric Chess (Orc-Elf)
Game: orc-elf # P..R..B.....N...Q....K.......q.....br...p.nk # fairy
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 11 10 9 3 10 11 8
p:125 -16,24 -16,7 -1,5 1,5
p:130 15,24 17,24 15,7 17,7
k:-1  1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:430 1,070,-15 1,070,17 16,070,17 16,070,15 -1,070,15 -1,070,-17 -16,070,-17 -16,070,-15
b:280 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:860 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:310 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7
q:1060 15,103 17,103 -15,103 -17,103 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:440 17,070,1 17,070,16 15,070,16 15,070,-1 -17,070,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,070,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
#
# P fWscWifnD
# p fFifnA
# N afsW
# n afsF
# B FA
# b jB
# R jR
# r WD
# Q RN
# q oBN

" Do you know any online chess service supporting illegal moves (free moves by agreement between the players themselves)? It would be the best for playing many non-classic variants without any programming (no AI analysis, no AI player, no AI tips - but the natural, origin wood form of a chess doesn't have these options too). "

I took the liberty replying to this in the Asymmetric Chess comments, as it did not seem to have anything to do with ChessV. You could use a page like this one. Although it highlights how pieces can move, it does not enforce this, and you can move them any way you want. If you have your own web space you could copy the page and change the rules it uses for highlighting to be the rules you want.

Hi Dmitry,

I'm not sure how you determined your piece values but they are almost certainly off from the true values.  I suspect the elves are as strong as the humans without the phoenix blink.

If you would like to try it, I created a preset for Game Courier and posted an open invitation.  I will take the Elves (black) without the blink power.  You can use the following link to accept the invitation:

/play/pbm/play.php?game=Asymmetric+Chess&log=mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2016-325-681&submit=Accept

Cheers,
Greg

To H. G. Muller:

Alternative Knights are not lame Knights! They have up to all 12 squares to moves, like a linear piece (with a limited range up to 2). Regarding the rest, I will try it, thanks.

I tested the old configure and had found that:
1) Blink-Phoenix is terrible! Elf vs Human defeats a pawn with 1.B:a7 (if the 1....R:a7 then 2.Qe3 with a diagonal a7-h8 attacking and capture one of the rooks). It need to be fixed and I'll remove this ability at the next update of the Asymmetric Chess.
2) AI is weak at the openings and is strongly influenced by the way played alternative pieces, maybe its a problem with my mistakes of configuring (upper case) or with starting arrangements or with some pieces/pawns' design.
3) The total results of the balance for now (with time-control of 1 minute per 40 turns):
Orc-Human 13:7
Elf-Human 8,5:11,5 (but 5:5 when the elf is white and capture a pawn with 1.B:a7 and 3,5:6,5 when the elf is black)
Elf-Orc 9:11
4) The Wyvern seems undervalued and strong as soon as the Griffin (classic Rook) because of the starting activity

Maybe instead Phoenix' blinking I'll give to the Pegasus range of 1-3 (instead of 1-2), I'm testing for it. The old Pegasus has very big difference with a classic Rook in his power, because a classic Rook (Griffin) has sieged range (longer that long-range of bishop's diagonals). An average range of diagonal's direction is about 2,5, and an average range of orthogonal's direction is 4. That's why I think that 4+ distance is sieged range but a range of 3 isn't sieged. New Pegasus will be as strong as a Griffin (Rook) because of a great jumping ability.

P.S. Alterntative Knights (unicorn/werewolf) may be counted as lame knights + ferz/wazir.

Ah OK. Sorry I misunderstood the Knights. So 43 is the correct move rights after all. Or perhaps better, because there are two moves passing over the same first square: make one of those lame (70), and allow the other to terminate there (43). That way you prevent that Fairy-Max will try to search the same move twice. (The hash table would largely cure any ill effects of that, but sometimes hash entries get overwritten.)

If there is no incentive to develop, opening play might be VERY poor. It is never very good, because the first 5 moves are heavily randomized. So opening moves like h2h4 will not be uncommon. But because both sides suffer from that it willnot skew the results. And it is needed to cause enough game diversity; when you play 100 games you don't want the same two games be repeated 50 times each.

Note that a 13-7 score hardly proves anything; you should at least do 100 games, and even then the standard error in the score will still be 4%. I had played 40 games before I realized I was using the wrong Knights, and the Orcs were leading by about 75% against the Elves, though (26+ 7- 7=).

I would update auto statistics at this post (with the new extended Pegasus instead of blink):

Orc vs Elf = 22,5 : 17,5
Orc vs Human = 21,5 : 18,5
Elf vs Human = 41 : 39

As a demo I have put up a page for Orcs vs Elves in my turn-based server ( http://hgm.nubati.net/variants/orc-elf/). It is rather easy to set up such a page for any variant; it only requires the interactive diagram included in it to be adapted to the variant in question.

It is not clear to me whether this variant has e.p. capture, though. Although the diagram is rather general in how it defines e.p. capture, there arises an ambiguity when Pawns have moves that can both capture and non-capture. If such a move would go to the square skipped over by the opponent Pawn on the preceding move, it could both be interpreted as a normal non-capture move or as an e.p. capture.

2 H. G. Muller:
Thank you. But there are some details.
The Hunter has the first part of moving (to range of 2) as a leaping, although continues his moving as a linear rider. In other words, he ia as classical Bishop but always skips (and ignores) the first square in each direction (at melee range of 1), like the Knight.
And the Wyvern has too.
The Pegasus is R3 but 100% leaper to all of his moves (can leap through up to 2 pieces). It gives him a great flexibility and makes him as stronger as the Rook.

If there some unclear details in the current rules (at the main post), please propose that such determinations would be clear to all. Maybe my current determinations are not clear now.

Sorry if it is inconvenient for the current notations: these types of moves were invented before I got to know this theory.

"If such a move would go to the square skipped over by the opponent Pawn on the preceding move, it could both be interpreted as a normal non-capture move or as an e.p. capture."
Hmm, its interesting. I think that this move has a capture's priority (always e.p. capture if possible). But there are some cases in which e.p.capture is put own king under a check - then moving to this square is not legal right now, even it is legal without e.p. capture.

And yes, there is a problem with e.p. capture in a Fairy-Max - the pawns may capture such a way any piece (not only pawns), even friendly, its a bug and later it is out of sync for engines :)

P.S. How I had found, the strongest configure for elvish AI is classical R and Q for a rook and queen, not centralized, as a standard rook and a queen.

Ah, I misunderstood your new Pegasus. This explains why the Elves were crushed so badly by the Orcs in my tests with Fairy-Max. (They scored only about 10%). I fixed that now on the web page.

The Wyvern and Hunter were already as you say, however. They cannot be blocked on the square adjacent to them.

What is unclear in your main article is how en-passant capture works with Orkish and Elvish Pawns. You write that all rules arethe same as in orthodox Chess, so that suggests there must also be en-passant capture. But if a Human or Orkish Pawn moves e2e4 while there is an Elvish Pawn on d4, can this Elvish Pawn then capture e4 by moving to e3? Can it move to e3 without capturing e4? Fairy-Max should never e.p.-capture other pieces than Pawns (i.e. the first piece defined for each color). Do you have an example game where this happens? Fairy-Max assumes that a move with capture rights to the e.p. square (i.e. a square where the preceding initial double-push could have been blocked) is an e.p. capture of that last-moved piece. You can define an initial double-push in an alternative way, either as a jump or as a lame move that does not create e.p. rights.

And I want to make decision (when a blink was removed), where is the best starting place for elvish bishops (Hunters), on b/g or on c/f files?

If the Hunters stay on c/f (as classical) then:
1) there is the g7-vulnerability and in EvE matchup 1.Qc3 forces a reaction of gf6/ef6
2) the Hunters are less aggresive but more maneurable (for example, Bh3 or Bb5+ moves)
3) Bb5-type moves counter 1....d4/d5 openings in EvH because after Bb5+ there is only one way to protect the king - moving a bishop or a knight to d7 with unfavorable exchange; and also that moves counter df4/df5 openings in EvE

If the Hunters stay on b/g files then:
1) EvE, EvH matchup: 1.Ra4 (or h4) immdediately attacks a7 and forces a reaction; this is an ability to cancel own castling for an early agression (and I think that for Elves with mobile pawns the castling is not important as for other armies)
2) the Hunter are more aggresive but less maneurable
3) EvH matchup: Ra4/h4 openings are still relevant because of the threating to a5-a8 capturing a rook (Griffin). And a possible reaction is b6 or a5 (these moves save a7 pawn also)

This is important for the elvish knights (Unicorns) too.

If the Unicorns stay on b/g (as classical) then:
1) their activation is possible through с2/f2 squares only, or as an alternative through a2/h2 but passive like Na3

If the Unicorns stay on c/f lines then:
1) their activation is possible through b2/g2 and d2/e2, more active variants

2 H. G. Muller

This is the illustration of how e.p. capture is broken (engine's bug):
1. d2-f4+ de3 (engine's move) but f4 pawn is still on the board and 2.f4:g5 is not legal because it is out of the sync.
If there is a black knight on the e4, it will disappear after that e.p. capture.

The white is the Elf and the black is the Elf or the Human on this diagram.

http://hgm.nubati.net/variants/orc-elf/
I like all of the new pieces' images except the phoenix (archbishop) and the centaurs. I think that archbishop may be like classical archbishop (but mirrored as chancellor) and the centaurs must be associated with bishops' classical images (as new hunters now). Because the centaur is a bishop variation, not an exotic piece with unique movement. And maybe the pegasus will be better as a "winged" rook, not sure. I think that the best idea is the nearest associations with classic pieces (werewolves/unicorns, fairies/guards, hunters, dragon are very nice).

OK, I see. This is not an engine bug, but a GUI bug. That is, WinBoard was never really changed to handle this complicated form of e.p. capture. It has always performed e.p.captures by the heuristic that a Pawn moving to an empty square not in the same file would as a side effect remove the piece just behind its destination square. Later I coded exceptions for this in variants xiangqi and berolina,and limited this behavior to cases where either legality testing was on, or the Pawn moved to the e.p. file. But in the case of a diagonally capturing Pawn e.p. capturing a diagonally double-pushed Pawn, this heuristic deletes the the wrong victim (e4 instead of f5). The engine knows nothing about that.

I any case WinBoard should not assume anything on pieces with redefined moves, even when legality testing is on. It should only assume e.p. capture when the move redefinition explicitly specifies the piece can e.p. capture, and the given move matches the defined move that does this.

Using the Lance symbol for Pawns would avoid application of the heuristic, but then true e.p. captures would never get their victim removed. The whole issue of e.p. capture is problematic, because the standard move notation always assumed that that the capture is an implied side effect of the move. But the black Pawn in the position you show is Elvish, this is no longer true. There is no general heuristic that would predict whether de6 in this position should remove f4 or not. It depends on the game rules, and it could even be that these allow both, so that the move can no longer be specified by just the start and destination squares.

As to the piece images used in the web page: I have only a limited set of images available, namely the XBoard piece glyphs. The crossed swords are WinBoard's standard representation of the Archbishop. I have only two bishop-like glyphs, one for the orthodox Bishop, the other now used for Hunter. (Well, that is not entirely true. I also have a Bishop without the inscribed cross. But it differs very little from the normal Bishop.Would it be better to use that for the Hunter, and the one now used for Hunter for the Centaur?) The point is that the piece that you call Centaur would be called Elephant in almost any variant it occurs. And it is a quite popular fairy piece. So Chess-variant players associate the Elephant very strongly with exactly the move you use for Hunter. So using a Bishop-like symbol for this piece would be rather confusing.

H. G. Muller
Can you fix this problem with e.p. or it's very difficult (if WinBoard is your program)? In principle, it is not so terrible for automatic testing, simply replay some games. However, this interferes with the analysis and manual games.

On my part, I can simply:
- Make fairy leaping/laming the first move, but it is a buff (and an extra rule)
- Remove from the fairy possibility of double move, but it is a nerf and killing of game dynamics

The problem is that the elves are very equal balanced now. And it seems, now I understand why Spartan pawns have leaping first move :)

About pieces' images yes, I understand. But many other players do not know what is the elephant and why it is associated with a diagonal movement. And that's why I'm not sure which variant is better.

About the archbishop, if a piece has knightish moves but has not knightish image, it would deal "terrible damage", stunning any new players, because knightish moves are the most dangerous in the game and a player must be warned about this by the face of the horse :)

I had add the next rule about en passant capturing:

"For Elvish and Orcish Pawns en passant capturing has the first prioity, there is no possible to ignore en passant capturing with a simple moving to the square without capturing of this square​"

And how I see this is how the engine works now.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Fairy = Stone General + pawn's basic mechanics (double move, e.p. capture, promotion)
Guard is unique

Unicorn = Ferz Knight without leaping
Werewolf = Wazir Knight without leaping

Hunter = Vanguard + leaping over adjacent squares
Centaur = Elephant (modern)

old Pegasus = Wazaba
Pegasus is unique
Wyvern is unique

Phoenix = Archbishop
Dragon = Chancellor

WinBoard is open source, and I am currently the most active developer. So, yes, I can and should change it. I had already started addressing the e.p. implementation in the latest release, to allow e.p. capturing on both skipped squares of a triple push (so that Omega Chess would work).

I uderstand that it would be very inconvenient to adapt the rules of your variant to work around problems of the interface.

"About pieces' images yes, I understand. But many other players do not know what is the elephant and why it is associated with a diagonal movement. And that's why I'm not sure which variant is better."

So one could argue it is high time for them to learn it. Originally Bishops were Elephants, moving two steps diagonally. In several languages they are still called such, and the slit in the head a modern Staunton Bishop is supposed to indicate their tusks. It never hurts to educate people.;-)

If I would use the 'featureless images' of Bishop and Rook (which were originally created for depicting pieces that move as normal Bishop and Rook, but promote differently, in Chu Shogi), I would be inclined to use them for Hunter / Pegasus, as the moves of these pieces are really very close to ordinary R and B.

Well, the Archbishop is a Bishop just as much as it is a Knight. It also seems confusing if too many pieces look like a Knight. Most players of variants in which the Archbishop participates do not seem to share your opinion. Seirawan Chess uses a Hawk for this piece, Gothic Chess uses the flattened Mitre I now used for Hunter. The popular SMIRF program for 10x8 Chess uses the crossed swords. I do have an image of a winged knight available, btw. People are likely to think it is a Pegasus, however. The names you assigned to the pieces does not fit their moves very well. In mythology Pegasus is a winged horse, and you use it on a piece that has no Knight moves. Similarly, a Centaur is both horse-like and human-like, and you made it fight for the Orcs without Knight moves. Perhaps you should consider renaming Phoenix to Pegasus, Pegasus to Eagle and Centaur to Troll (and Guard to Goblin, as Trolls and Goblins are known accomplishes of Orcs.)

Indeed, this is how Fairy-Max works. But WinBoard is supposed to be a general interface, and it is conceivable that other variants would have other rules. If at all possible I would therefore prefer a solution that works for all cases. WinBoard already has a general mechanism for writing moves with unexpected side effects, by writing them as two separate moves separated by a comma. So in principle a non-standard e.p. capture asin yout example could be written d4f4,f4e3 . There is no notation mechanism, however, to suppress implied side effects. So if e.p. capture is assumed by default, variants where one could choose would be in trouble.

I guess a good first step would be to design a mechanism through which the engine could inform the GUI whether e.p. capture has priority over non-capture, or whether it should be aplayer choice. One way to do this would be to adopt the rule that only when non-capture and e.p. capture in the Betza notation are enabled on the same atom, it is a user choice (so that e.p. capture would need the double-move notation). The Elvish Pawn should then be defined as fmcFfeFifmnA , while in the case of user choice one would have written fmceFifmnA. In the latter case the GUI should highlight e3 in yellow when you grab d4, and f4 in cyan. When you then click e3 it would leave f4 on the board, when you click f4 it would highlight e3 so you can finish the e.p. capture.

To H. G. Muller:

My opinions of the images are less important than the convenience of the players in any way. So if you sure maybe it's right.
About the Elephant, in my country the Bishop has name of the Elephant, but this is a word, not the image.

"The names you assigned to the pieces does not fit their moves very well. In mythology Pegasus is a winged horse, and you use it on a piece that has no Knight moves. Similarly, a Centaur is both horse-like and human-like, and you made it fight for the Orcs without Knight moves. Perhaps you should consider renaming Phoenix to Pegasus, Pegasus to Eagle and Centaur to Troll (and Guard to Goblin, as Trolls and Goblins are known accomplishes of Orcs.)"

In my opinions:
-Pawn-type is infantry
-Knight-type is cavalry
-Bishop-type is archers (but in fantasy subjects it's also casters)
-Rook-type is sieged (but in fantasy subjects it's a flyers)

So I had gave names with those types + race's themes. As for me, it is not a question of principle, if the most players agree with you, than change it. About the Guard, he was originally a Goblin, but the Goblin doesn't match to his defensive style, he is more Dwarf than Goblin (yes, this is a strange alliance).

The current Centaur and Pegasus are good associated with the classical knights not by moving types but by 100% leaping and limited range (originally they had the same range up to 2 squares - mid-range, but then the Pegasus was buffed to 3). That's why I had choose these names.



In terms of classic images, I like new images for the Hunter and the Wyvern, because (as for me) it's good associated with the blind zones that units have. But I like the Pegasus image too and so agree that it's very good for the Archbishop piece (it has a horse and the wings show that unit is mobile). This is the strong argue for renaming Phoenix to the Pegasus and I need to think about it.

Another one with Elven Army by name that is also a Chess Different Army is Fantasy Grand, Elven from year 2000.

Yes, but the Elves is only name, as fantasy theme is only image.
The main difference of this variant from the Chess with Different Armies is in 3 points:
1) all classic mechanics and types without any exotic moves
2) different pawns
3) new units/races are only for the asymmetrical balance, not for the new units/races (that's why it could never be 4+ races/armies if 3 is enough)

There is 100% guarantee that all non-king units are unique within this system, and all units in their types are not dominating each other (like extended knights with extra moves dominating classical knights at all aspects). There are simple rules limiting only classic mechanics. And these are very strong requirements or limitations for development, that's why the Asymmetric's Orcs and Elves armies can be included to Chess with Different Armies, but not vice versa.

In other words, this variant is detached subsystem of Chess with Different Armies, with strong limitations for classic rules and types.

[Added after Dmitry Eskin's following comment the same 23.11.16: this looks very good but I have to study it -- and the already comments of Muller. I assumed (0,x) wrong for Rook but it's more sophisticated, so I will wait on design analysis of Asymmetrical and how its Pawns work and similarities to other CVs, rather than more now off the cuff.]

Buddha. Ramayana has all-range leaping Bishop in Rakshasa and all-range leaping Rook in Buddha. Orcs and Elves of Asymmetrical use the classical orthogonals and diagonals the way Ramayana does on its very strange board, but Asymmetrical splits them into two. One question, are the point values equal to 31 as they need to be? That leads to the Pawns.

2 George Duke:

These are other units, if you look closely. And when I sayed "unique", I add "within system", i.e. within these 3 races, with no repeating. For example, the Centaur is not unique outside the system, because is identical to the modern Elephant.

http://hgm.nubati.net/variants/orc-elf/ - you may see all these units how they work.
For example, the Wyvern is a rook always skipping and leaping over the adjacent square. It can't leap over the other squares, only over the adjacent square, then moves as linear. 100% leaping rook is the Pegasus but he is limited to range of 3.

One question, are the point values equal to 31 as they need to be? That leads to the Pawns.

All armies are equals each other, if you summarize (equals to 41 with pawns and without kings). 31 is the only estimated number of which depends on the accuracy of the estimate.

These estimatings are mine, and I can mistake at some of them. But totally, the engine shows that all armies are equal very much (in long series of games).

Are Guard, Pegasus, and Wyvern unique as claimed? Pegasus. Let's find out in follow-up.

I'm thinking about changing names of the units:

Centaur -> Shaman (Bishop-2 leaping); he is a "spellcaster" like a Monk - classic Bishop
Phoenix -> Pegasus (Knight + Bishop)
Pegasus -> Phoenix (Rook-3 leaping)

What about this variant?

But in my opinion, the Phoenix is associated with much power than the Pegasus; and the Centaur (archer) is more warlike than the Shaman.

The logic of the old names was:
- The Pegasus (jR3) is leaper like the Knight, but is flyer/orthogonal like the Griffin/Rook
- The Centaur (jB2) is leaper like the Knight, but is archer/diagonal like the Hunter
- The Phoenix (Elvish Queen = BN) is simply a supreme, divine creature for the elves, like the Angel for Humans or the Dragon for Orcs

Are Guard, Pegasus, and Wyvern unique as claimed? Pegasus. Let's find out in follow-up.

Oh, I remember that:

Guard = Dog in the Space Chess (by Alex Erohno), but this piece is not famous in the Wiki.
The Dog can promote only to light units and can e.p. capture only other Dogs (because of equality with the classic pawn). But the Guard has standard promotion and standard e.p. capturing, because the asymmetry is not equality one to one.

I had updated my estimatings in the main post, with better accuracy, and added the "Unit's comparrison" article.

King: Hero = 2.7

HUMANS
Pawn: Footman = 1.0
Knight: Knight = 3.25
Bishop: Monk = 3.6
Rook: Griffin = 5.0
Queen: Angel = 9.6

ELVES
Pawn: Fairy = 1.2
Knight: Unicorn = 4.25 (heavy)
Bishop: Hunter = 2.8
Rook: Pegasus = 4.75
Queen: Phoenix = 8.1

ORCS
Pawn: Guard = 1.25
Knight: Werewolf = 4.2
Bishop: Centaur = 2.75
Rook: Wyvern = 4.5
Queen: Dragon = 8.4

Well, the naming is not a big deal. I agree with the idea that it is much more important to make the piece images reflect the way the piece moves than reflect the name. I also try to follow this policy in WinBoard. But players of some of the more popular variants, such as Seirawan Chess, in general get very unhappy when you depict the pieces not exactly as they are used to (i.e.when you use something else than Hawk and Elephant for BN and RN).

But using a piece image that suggests a certain move would be very confusing if it clearly depicts something that matches the name of another piece. E.g. if a variant uses pieces that move like a Camel and a Modern Elephant, but calls the Camel-mover an Elephant, this pretty much rules out that I can use the Elephant glyph for this Modern Elephant.

So I agree that it is a lot of merit in the idea that all pieces with Knight moves should look 'knightish'. But I only have a limited number or knightish images available amongst the XBoard built-in pieces, (and even fewer in WinBoard). These are Knight, masked horse (Nightrider), Unicorn, Knight-Rook chimera (Chancellor), Zebra and winged horse. And the Zebra does not seem very suitable. So that leaves the winged horse (unfortunately not available in WinBoard) for the Elvish Queen. But in mythology Pegasus is a winged horse, so having another piece named Pegasus rules this out. And the winged-horse glyph cannot be used for that other piece either, because it would subvert the idea that knightish glyphs should alert people to the fact the piece can move as a Knight. So the original naming really interfered badly with the possibility to choose suitable images. This is why I suggested the name change.

I am not very familiar with the mythology of the Phoenix, but I don't associate it with a very powerful creature, like a dragon). I imagine it as a pieceful, innocent creature, no match for an eagle. I doubt anyway whether the logic of assiging similar functions (such as archers, spell-casters) to corresponding units of the different armies will be very helpful to prospective players (or would even be noticed by them). It just makes it difficult to find names that they would easily remember.

BTW, I started looking into the WinBoard e.p.-capture problem, and it is pretty tough. One unforseen problem is that assignment of e.p. capture rights reflects on detection of 3-fold repetitions. Presence o frights would not make it a repetition, but then the rights should only be granted when there actually is a Pawn that can make the e.p. capture. This means I cannot assign e.p. rights for every double push. But whether there is a Pawn that can make the capture depends on how enemy Pawns move. I guess we don't care much whether WinBoard will fail to detect some repetitions in variants with non-standard Pawns, but I should be careful not to break anything for orthodox Chess.

To H. G. Muller

If we prefer the Pegasus as Elvish Queen then it will be clear inconsistency with the Angel and the Dragon and they also will be removed (but they are very strong fantasy figures). But the Phoenix by many sources is equal to that figures or sometimes even higher.

I think that we can save all the old names because this is not important for 99% players. For example, there is possible to be embarrassed that an elephant/bishop playfully runs along the diagonals through all the board, but because of this, very few people stopped playing classical chess.

About images, my opinion:

Dragon = Chancellor = Knight-Rook chimera (standard, don't change).
Phoenix = Archbishop = Pair of the swords (modern standard, don't change).
Hunter, Centaur = Bishop-types.
Pegasus, Wyvern = Rook-types.
Unicorn, Werewolf, Fairy, Guard = good like now, don't change.

About e.p. capturing, I think that there are 2 main criteria:
1) orthodox pawn could be correct
2) diagonal pawn could be correct (the current problem)
Everything else is unimportant because is extremally rare (and you may slow the engine for nonexistent pawns).

I think I have a satisfactory solution implemented in WinBoard, now. I improved the standard move generation and execution for Pawns to always remember the square skipped by a Pawn or Lance that moves more than 1 step forward, as well as where that Pawn ended up. And I now always allow a diagonal Pawn move to the same file as such a square, and then always remove the Pawn moved on the preceding move. Pawns (or Lances) with redefined moves, however, will consider every move to the skipped square an attempt to e.p. capture, also if that move in the move definition did not have e.p. capture rights (but some other move did), or indeed any capture rights at all.

This fails for Berolina Pawns, which can move through their diagonal non-capture to the square skipped by an anti-diagonal double-push. But there would hardly ever be any need to define Pawns as Berolina Pawns, as Berolina Chess is a standard variant, which has these Pawns and their e.p. habits hard-coded, and other variants could inherit that by defining 'berolina' as parent variant.

The Elvish and Orkish Pawns  do not have this problem:  all their moves can capture, and thus presumably also e.p. capture when they go to a square skipped by a double-push. Only FIDE Pawns have a problem against Elvish Pawns, in that their straight-forward non-capture can reach a skipped square. But this can then be solved by not redefining the Human Pawn, so that the built-in default move generation is used for that. And this does know that only diagonal moves can e.p. capture.

The only problem is that e.p. rights will not always be properly taken into account when comparing positions for the purpose of determining 3-fold-repetition draws. WinBoard might mistakenly think that no e.p. rights exists after a double-push because there are no Pawns next to the double-pushed Pawn that could e.p. capture it. While in fact the Pawns that can e.p. capture it are further away (e.g. after e2-e4 an Orkish Pawn on d3, or after e2-g4 an Elvish Pawn on e4). I suppose we can live with that; Fairy-Max assumes any repetition of a previous position will be a draw anyway.

The fixed WinBoard executable can be dowloaded from http://hgm.nubati.net/winboard.zip .

The only problem is that e.p. rights will not always be properly taken into account when comparing positions for the purpose of determining 3-fold-repetition draws.

It's not important for the most players, if this is no online-tournament engine.

Thank you for supporting new chess variants. Are you interested in programming the online-engine of lichess for this variant? I don't know how difficult is it.

I think the on-line engine used at Lichess is Stockfish (or more accurately, a Stockfish derivative). And I am not interested in working on Stockfish. In the first place it is written in a programming language I do not master (C++). But I also think it would be pretty hard to convert it to support more piece types, and in particular piece types used in Asymmetric Chess, such as the Wolf and Unicorn.

To H. G. Muller:

http://hgm.nubati.net/variants/orc-elf/

Can you put all 9 match-ups for this variant into your online service?

There is all match-ups for Fairy-Max:

// Asymmetric Chess (Orc-Orc)
Game: fairy/Orc-Orc # P..R........NB..Q....Kp..r........nb..q....k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:125 -16,24 -16,7 -1,5 1,5
p:125 16,24 16,7 -1,5 1,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
# P fWscWifmnD
# p fWscWifmnD
# N WafsW
# n WafsW
# B FA
# b FA
# R yafWgafW
# r yafWgafW
# Q RN
# q RN

// Asymmetric Chess (Human-Human)
Game: fairy/Human-Human # PNBRQ.........Kpnbrq.........k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:100 -16,24 -16,6 -15,5 -17,5
p:100 16,24 16,6 15,5 17,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
# P fmWfcFifmnD
# p fmWfcFifmnD
# N N
# n N
# B B
# b B
# R R
# r R
# Q RB
# q RB

// Asymmetric Chess (Elf-Elf)
Game: fairy/Elf-Elf # ..B....Q......R...P.NK..b....q......r...p.nk
8x8
6 5 4 7 3 4 5 6
8 11 10 9 3 10 11 8
p:120 -15,24 -17,24 -15,7 -17,7
p:120 15,24 17,24 15,7 17,7
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
# P fFifmnA
# p fFifmnA
# N FafsF
# n FafsF
# B yafFgafF
# b yafFgafF
# R WDH
# r WDH
# Q BN
# q BN

// Asymmetric Chess (Elf-Human)
Game: fairy/Elf-Human # ..B....Q......R...P.NKpnbrq................k
8x8
6 5 4 7 3 4 5 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:120 -15,24 -17,24 -15,7 -17,7
p:100 16,24 16,6 15,5 17,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
# P fFifmnA
# p fmWfcFifmnD
# N FafsF
# n N
# B yafFgafF
# b B
# R WDH
# r R
# Q BN
# q RB

// Asymmetric Chess (Human-Elf)
Game: fairy/Human-Elf # PNBRQ................K..b....q......r...p.nk
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 11 10 9 3 10 11 8
p:100 -16,24 -16,6 -15,5 -17,5
p:120 15,24 17,24 15,7 17,7
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
# P fmWfcFifmnD
# p fFifmnA
# N N
# n FafsF
# B B
# b yafFgafF
# R R
# r WDH
# Q RB
# q BN

// Asymmetric Chess (Human-Orc)
Game: fairy/Human-Orc # PNBRQ................Kp..r........nb..q....k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:100 -16,24 -16,6 -15,5 -17,5
p:125 16,24 16,7 -1,5 1,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
# P fmWfcFifmnD
# p fWscWifmnD
# N N
# n WafsW
# B B
# b FA
# R R
# r yafWgafW
# Q RB
# q RN

// Asymmetric Chess (Orc-Human)
Game: fairy/Orc-Human # P..R........NB..Q....Kpnbrq................k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:125 -16,24 -16,7 -1,5 1,5
p:100 16,24 16,6 15,5 17,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
# P fWscWifmnD
# p fmWfcFifmnD
# N WafsW
# n N
# B FA
# b B
# R yafWgafW
# r R
# Q RN
# q RB

// Asymmetric Chess (Elf-Orc)
Game: fairy/Elf-Orc # ..B....Q......R...P.NKp..r........nb..q....k
8x8
6 5 4 7 3 4 5 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:120 -15,24 -17,24 -15,7 -17,7
p:125 16,24 16,7 -1,5 1,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
# P fFifmnA
# p fWscWifmnD
# N FafsF
# n WafsW
# B yafFgafF
# b FA
# R WDH
# r yafWgafW
# Q BN
# q RN

// Asymmetric Chess (Orc-Elf)
Game: fairy/Orc-Elf # P..R........NB..Q....K..b....q......r...p.nk
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 11 10 9 3 10 11 8
p:125 -16,24 -16,7 -1,5 1,5
p:120 15,24 17,24 15,7 17,7
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
# P fWscWifmnD
# p fFifmnA
# N WafsW
# n FafsF
# B FA
# b yafFgafF
# R yafWgafW
# r WDH
# Q RN
# q BN
 

OK, done. Except for human-human, which seems just orthodox Chess.

As for the Fairy-Max game definitions: it is better to leave out the Betza move definition of the Human pawn (the line strating with "# P" or "# p") where the Humans play the Elves. These lines are only for sending to WinBoard to reconfigure its move generator, and it is better to rely on the built-in generator for FIDE Pawns, because this makes proper destinction between capture and non-capture moves when deciding if it should e.p. capture. (Against Human or Orc Pawns this does not matter, because the FIDE Pawn's only non-capture move could never reach the skipped square. But against Elvish Pawns it can.)

About Fairy-Max:

I have tested 200 games for each non-mirror match-up (100 white + 100 black) and have got this statistics:
Elf < Human 46,25%
Elf < Orc 40,25%
Human < Orc 38,25%
It seems to be: Orc > Human > Elf, but the game analysis indicates that Elf > Human > Orc at the openings. And it is logically, because Elves have more active Pawns and the Orcs have less. That's why the Elves and Humans must be initiative but they don't, prefer to passive openings. They don't get any advantages in space, and Orcs, after the opening without any problems, punish them for their passivity. The Orcs have equal statistics playing white and black, it only confirms their weakness in the openings (potential but not real in auto games).

And this is a problem (and the feature) of asymmetry, different sides mean different opening's speed. If we will skip openings playing passive style and our side have an advantage at openings, then we will lose this advantage.

Without strong openings I can't get an answer to the question: are the Orcs imba, or not?

I have tested games at the time control of 1 sec per turn because each game need to be manually shown and I have no time to watch a lot of games in a long time. The WinBoard have a serious bug to incorrectly counting the wins and loses in the match of the same engines. It may show 20-20-10, but really there was 30-10-10 (if manually watching the games).

For example of opening's advantages:
- Elves have active Bishops from the very beginning, such moves are available and not bad (vs Human): 1.e4 - Bf4!
- Elves have active Rooks from the very beginning, move like 1.Ra4 is available (vs Human), the Orcish Wyverns may also leaping there, but only the Pegasus' move is good (because creates a real threats of Rxa7 or Ra5 - Rxa8)
- Elvish Knights (Unicorns) are centralized and can quickly enter the game through the squares of e2 and d2 (although not quickly as Human Knights), but Orcish Knights need to free squares f1 and c1 first (need to starts with their Bishops).
- Elves don't need to activate their Bishops, they are already active! Elves even don't need to move them for castling, because even simple Kf1 and then, if necessary, Re1 (leaping over the King and the Bishop) do the same, but faster.
- Orcs have problems with their short Bishops, because Be3 or Bd3 may block central Pawns (much more important than f и с after Human Knights moves Nf3 or Nc3).
- Elvish Pawns have many variants to enter the game, but Orcish Pawns lose all their defensive bonus when moving. Elves can checkmate Orcs at the first move: 1.g3?? Bxg3#

What do you mean by "game analysis indicates"? The result of the game is an objective measure, but any reported score merely reflects what you put in, in terms of piece values.

Note that WinBoard reports the score per player, and that in a match the players alternate color. So you cannot associate the reported number of wins with a particular color. There are two ways to get what you want: one is make sure the games of a particular test are automatically saved in a separate file, not containing anything else, and then opening that game file with WinBoard (Load Game). In the header of the game list WinBoard then reports the statistics of the game sets, wins, losses and draws for white. (As in general multi-game files can have many players.) The second method would be to start WinBoard with the 'Additional option' -sameColorGames 100 (or any other number of games you desire). This suppresses the color alteration, so that you can associate the scoreof the first player with white. (It also overrules the games per pairing).

For example how quickly elves may evolve an initiative, the game vs Humans:

1.ec4 d5 (with favorable exchange: Footman is weaker than Fairy)
2.cd Qxd5
3.ce4 Qg5 (blocking Ne2 due to Qxg2)
4.Be3 Qg6
5.Qf3 Nd7
6.d5 Qd6
7.Ra4 b6
8.Be4 Rb8
9.Bc6+ Kd8
10.Rxa7 Ngf6
11.Ra8+ Rxa8
12.Bxa8 Bb7
13.c6 Bxa8
14.b7 Bb7
15.Qxb7+ Ke8
16.Qxd6 ed
17.Ne2 with a significant advantage

Or another variant:
10....Bb7
11.Rxb7 Rxb7
12.Ba4 Nc5
13.c6 Ra7
14.Bxc5 Qxc5
15.Ne2 Rxa4
16.b7 Nf6
17.Nd4 Qxc1+
18.Ke2 Qc4+
19.Kd1 Qd5
20.Nc6+ Ke8
21.Qxd5 Nxd5
22.c8Q Nf6
23.Nb5.

I don't check all variants, its a simple illustration of elvish style how it can be at the openings. You may see these variants:
first demo
second demo

H. G. Muller

What do you mean by "game analysis indicates"? The result of the game is an objective measure, but any reported score merely reflects what you put in, in terms of piece values.

An objective measure if the openings are right. Game analysis means that value indicated by game engine if switch to analysis mode. Maybe it's a problem of fast timing control but at the 10 minutes to 40 turns engine plays closed and passive openings too.

All pieces values summary are equals, scores differ because of the position advantage, activity or abilities to get material advantage, which are maximum for elves and minimum for orcs at the openings.

As I had read, the first 3 turns are "random" but this random can't be objective because players play openings to get an advantage and to use the strong abilities of their pieces. Openings like 1.c3, 2.d3 are not that openings which is actual.

There will be not important if all 3 races have equal opening's abilities, but they haven't.

Originally, I had think that such passive style means a bad design of new units, but when I had launch Human-Human mirror (or Orthodox chess), I saw the same style.

About saving results into the file - thanks, I will try it.

There is an example of auto game Human-Human at 10 minutes:

1.Nf3 d5 2.c3 c6 3.d3 Be6 4.Nd4 Bd7 5.Bf4 Qb6 6.Qb3 f6 7.Nf3 Na6.

Can white realize their tempo advantage playing this style? No. And elves and humans can't also (versus orcs).

I think that elves have advantage at openings, orcs - at midgames, and humans - at endgames. Both elves and humans can't get enough advantage from openings, but orcs get full advantage at midgame, because the engine is much stronger at midgame.

Maybe, adding openings base will fix this situtation, but it's not objective. I think the program shows that the maximum advantage of the Orcs is about 0.5 pawn (if all openings are passive), and only multiplayer statistics can get more detailed estimatings, including full value of the openings.

You should not take the scores reported by Fairy-Max that seriously. For one, the positional part of its score is relative to the current position. Its own position can be far better, and it can still report a negative score (with equal material). Because the opponent can improve his position a bit more (or faster) than the side to move. This is for instance clearly to see directly after it castles, when the opponent has not castled yet. Castling gets a large bous (or it would never do it), and of course it is usually not possible to prevent the opponent from doing it. So even though this only equalizes, and the opponent could have other disadvantages too (like more-poorly developed pieces), Fairy-Max will still report a negative score, just because it can never match the castling bonus that it already collected.

Maybe, it will be better, if the Fairy-Max will have not static, but dynamic evaluating of pieces, according the same criterias, that I use for balancing new units (you may read it at the end of main post). It is very experimental way, but if all weights are correct, an evaluation of positions will no depends on user's subjective values and mistakes. The basic idea is that the 60-80% of the piece's value is determined by its average attack/speed and can be pre-calculated at the beginning of game, but then add a positional part of values to each piece depending on it's current position, attacks and moves limiting by obstacles, activity (value of attacking squares), acceleration, agility and potential. There is no fact that it will work as universal, but if there is successful, it will be great.

Now, if any chess variant (with different armies) is imbalanced, there is no assurance that it is objective not only because of poor openings but because the engine makes decisions depending on evaluations of positions, which depend on the user's subjective values of his own pieces.If the user is wrong by his values, then the engine is wrong by its evaluations. And I believe that adding right positional criterias make the openings much better without dependings on the openings book. Because any passive openings like c3 or d3 will impair the positional power of own pieces, blocking their current moves and abilities. For example, move c3 kills orthodox Knight's potential to attacking squares d5 and a4, limits its speed and agility (moves x threats) to attacking b5 and e4 and commonly is the very bad move, except cases that square of d4 is under opponent's attack and it is important to defend this square or to prepare active move of d4 (not d3). There is no need to calculate any deep variants to understand for the engine that this move is terrible.

Maybe, it will be better to create position's evaluating special config, in which user can define values of many position criterias (weights) if he want to correct the engine's playing style.

And the next idea is to improve endgames by learning the engine any type positions. For example, user edit the position, place some pieces and then launch the analysis and the program automately generate "Nalimov's tables" for the endgames with these peaces. I find that now the engine have several problems to checkmating a bare king with the Wyvern or even with the several Queen-type units (sometimes make stalemating instead checkmating), although this is a problem only if there is very fast timing control. But as for me, it's very interesting to explore the endgames of Dragon (Chancellor) versus Griffin (Rook) and many others with new units, because these endgames haven't any existing Nalimov's tables yet.

It doesn't work (5.0b3).

Update: I add the string /sameColorGames 100 to the end of file winboard.ini and it seems to work correctly, thanks.

You left out the leading hyphen when you typed the option in the startup dialog. All option names (as opposed to the option values) should start with a '-' or '/'. (These are treated as equivalent; one is Linux style, the other is Windows style. The '=' between an option name and value is also optional, and can be a space instead.) So in the ini file it worked because you did write the '/'.

I had saw that pawns' moves puts to hash as "c3" but with elvish diagonal pawns there are some different pawns able to move here.

Update: sorry, it was my mistake - I use the same file for different match-ups, they were not elves in that game. As I understand, I need to use different hash-file for each match-up.

H. G. Muller:
I'm interested in your statistical method of evaluating pieces with Fairy-Max. But I don't know details and need to some advices.

For example, I want to evaluate Pegasus, then change 2 Rooks by 2 Pegasus and launch long series. If I get a result of winrate of 60% (for example), how to convert it to centipawns? And how long match need to played for accuracy of 0.25 pawn? 0.1 pawn? 0.05 pawn? Is it works if I set a fast timing limits of 1 sec per turn, or maybe better to use another timing limits for such tests?

How is better to test pawns if they have different options to promote (different versions of queens)? First test Queens, get values, exchange them and then test pawns?

Do you have results for famous peaces, like Archbishop, Chancellor and Elephant (jB2) on the 8x8 board? What about base (orthodox) pieces: Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen, King (as Man)?

"For example, I want to evaluate Pegasus, then change 2 Rooks by 2 Pegasus and launch long series. If I get a result of winrate of 60% (for example), how to convert it to centipawns?"

You can then delete the f-Pawn of the side that scored 60%, and repeat the test. If it now scores 45%, you know the Pawn was worth 15%, so the 60% translates to an advantage of 2/3 Pawn, which would be 33cP for a sigle Rook-Pegasus difference. If you do this for many piece comparisons,and each time deleting a Pawn makes the score drop ~15%, you can expect that to be always the case, and skip the Pawn-odds test if the score was close to 50%.

"And how long match need to played for accuracy of 0.25 pawn? 0.1 pawn? 0.05 pawn?"

The standard deviation of the score percentage in a match of N games is approximately 40%/sqrt(N). For N=100 that would be 4%. If a Pawn is indeed worth ~16%, that would be 25cP. But in 32% of the cases the error would be larger than that. To be within error bars 95% of the time you should count on an error of 2 standard deviations. To get that to 25cP you would need 4 times as many game, i.e. 400. To get the standard deviation to 0.1 Pawn (2.5x smaller) you would need 6.25 times as many games, i.e. 2500. For 5cp it would be 10,000. But I doubt that piece values can be defined with this precision anyway; the whole idea that pieces have aconstant value is only an approximation, and in practice the value could differ dependent on what the opponent has, or where they start in the opening. (As is most dramatically demonstrated by the fact that in 'Charge of the Light Brigade' 7 Knights crush 3 Queens.)

"Is it works if I set a fast timing limits of 1 sec per turn, or maybe better to use another timing limits for such tests?"

It is better to use time cotrolslike 40 or 60 moves per minute, than a fixed time per move, so that the engine can allocate the time where its needs it, and is not forced to abort a depth iteration that took unexpectedly long, and let the effort goto waste. But 40 moves/min should be fine. I never tried faster games.

More later.

I think that I need 10k games per unit.

My aim is the balance not far than 55%, such as 52 +/- 2% in each match-up. There are 5 different unit's types: queens, knights, rooks, bishops and pawns, so for each type accuracy must be +/- 0,8%. And it equals 0.05 pawn per type (if pawn = 16%). "Per type" means the full complect (for example, 2 bishops or 8 pawns).

Have you tested this values for orthodox pieces? This is no important for balancing (because of relative difference), but good to publicating absolute values. And I know that this is only statistics, real values are dynamical and positional.

I think that if the Orcs will be the imba, the best way to balance them is limiting promotion of their Guards, for example don't promote to a Dragon. But the next 2 candidates, a Wyvern and a Werewolf are very closed, so Fairy-Max "promoting to only Queen" (where the "Queen" is one of that pieces #7 or #9) will not be as good as for natural Queen.

Hello Dmitry,

As a fellow inventor I'd like to congratulate you for taking the daunting endevour of creating a different armies game. I'm, personally on the fence for that as balance is hard to obtain. But in the end "Nothing worth doing is easy" (I don't remember who said that first).

" My aim is the balance not far than 55%, such as 52 +/- 2% in each match-up. There are 5 different unit's types: queens, knights, rooks, bishops and pawns, so for each type accuracy must be +/- 0,8%. And it equals 0.05 pawn per type (if pawn = 16%). "Per type" means the full complect (for example, 2 bishops or 8 pawns). "

That is not an efficient approach. Whether the armies are balanced follows from having the complete armies play against each other. That is only a single measurement, which would need a much lower accuracy (2% ~ 1/8 Pawn) than each of the individual piece values would need to make the sum accurate enough. Adding piece values is an approximation anyway. Some pieces cooperate better than others, some pieces combat some opponent pieces better than others. You would never see that when you measure the pieces in isolation. Of course you need to approximately know the piece values to make realistic measurements, though. (E.g. whether a player should seek a certain trade or avoid it could influence the valuesof the involved pieces.)

H. G. Muller

Maybe, it's not an efficient approach, but changing and testing only the one type of pieces doesn't suffer from the openings as all different army. Also, I don't know how much evaluation of pieces affects to engine's decisions. Then it's better to get these values first.

In any case, it's more effective to test it by parts, for the first iteration 100 games per unit.

Aurelian Florea

Hello! Thank you, but it's not hard for me, because there is only 10-15 units, not hundreds, which I usually work with. Hard are only limitations that I set: no any exotic peaces, no any strange extra moves and no any special rules. And now I need to understand, is it a perfect balance now, or not.

The automatic tests are interesting type of balancing tools, and it's a very big privilege to have it for chess, but it is unclear how they can be trusted and what limitations they have. Because the engine have features that may affect to results, or may not, and this is provisional, not real statistics of games played by real people. And for statistics there are very small numbers yet.

Well, Dmitry I'm not sure about the elo of fairy-max, but it seems fairly respectable, anyway better than my 1800 or so! Also HG method is ELO free, so it depends only on material balance after all substractions and divisions have been made!

At this post I will publicate and update statistics:

Pawn = 63,0% of 1000 games (+/- 2%)

Dragon (RN, Chancellor) + pawn f = Angel (Q), 51,9% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
Phoenix (BN, Archbishop) + pawn f < Angel (Q), 46,0% of 500 games (+/- 3%)

Exchanging the Queens also affects to pawns, so the advantage of Angel may be only 75% of the full, because other 25% difference pawns gains for the better promotion.

2 Wyverns (R>1) + pawn f > 2 Griffins (R), 54,1% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
2 Pegasus (jR3) > 2 Griffins (R), 53,6% of 500 games (+/- 3%)

2 Werewolves (N+) = 2 Knights (N) + pawn f, 52,5% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
2 Unicorns (Nx) > 2 Knights (N) + pawn f, 58% of 500 games (+/- 3%)

2 Hunters (B>1) + 2 pawns f/c = 2 Monks (B), 48,1% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
2 Centaurs (jB2) < 2 Monks (B), 39,9% of 500 games (+/- 3%)

8 Fairies (px) + Phoenix (BN, Archbishop) > 8 Footmen (p) + Angel (Q), 60,2% of 100 games (+/- 3%)
7f Guards (p+) + Dragon (RN, Chancellor) < 8 Footmen (p) + Angel (Q), 42,4% of 500 games (+/- 3%)

Current equalities:

Dragon = Angel - 0.6
Phoenix = Angel - 1.0

Wyvern = Griffin - 0.3
Pegasus = Griffin + 0.2

Werewolf = Knight + 0.6
Unicorn = Knight + 0.8

Hunter = Monk - 1.1
Centaur = Monk - 0.4

Fairy = Footman + 0.2
Guard = Footman + 0.15

I think that auto statistics can't be very exact, because of experience of other strategies shows that a balance depends on player's skills and styles. The balance will be different for grandmasters and novices, for humans and engines, with openings' books and endgames' tables and without it. But it is important to ensure that the basic balance of the matchups is within acceptable limits, 40-60% rather than 70% or higher. And the automatic tests can be useful for adjusting units evaluation as provide an alternative, machine evaluation as one of the approximate marks.

So I will test separate units by 3 iterations: 100, 500 and 2500 games (200, 1000 and 5000 for basic pawn evaluating), that gives an accuracy of 0.25, 0.1 and 0.05 per unit (0.05, 0.02 and 0.01 for pawns). Then I will launch 1000 games for each match-up and 500 for mirrors. Mirrors are important to get statistics about white and black balance. All games will be launched at the minimal time limits, 1 sec per turn, because it provides greater accuracy per spent time.

Overall (by the 1 iteration of test):

Hero = 3.0

Footman = 1.0
Knight = 3.25
Monk = 3.5
Griffin = 5.0
Angel = 9.5

Guard = 1.15
Centaur = 3.1
Werewolf = 3.85
Wyvern = 4.7
Dragon = 8.9

Fairy = 1.2
Hunter = 2.4
Unicorn = 4.05
Pegasus = 5.2
Phoenix = 8.5

1) This is surprising that Centaurs are much stronger than Hunters
2) These values can't be used as average powers because they show only unit's potential from the very beginning of game; the side which have better potential, have better chances commonly
3) The starting power of Queen-type units is really high, much more than 2 Rooks
4) These values (starting powers) don't correlate with average power, neither of orthodox pieces, nor of new peaces with my calculations, that's why better accuracy is not important, and I think I will stop on the 2nd iteration, 500 games per unit.

I have an idea for weakening Orcs, to deprive them of the right to castling, but at first, I need to collect their massive statistics before it and after it to ensure that this measure is really necessary.

Interesting game and worth trying out.

I also love your pieces, specially the Werewolf and the Unicorn that are new to me.

Here are a few remarks:

The "jumping rook" and "jumping bishop" pieces are known as "ski rook" and "ski bishop" (think of ski jumping!) for a long time, for a reference see, e.g., here: http://www.mayhematics.com/q/mccs.htm

Since your Chess Variant is a themed or Humans, Elves and Orcs, some artistic freedom in piece nameing is generally granted, But I think you are going overboard in renaming the Human pieces (the standard Chess pieces) only to create unnecessary confusion. Also, the name Phoenix is given traditionally to another piece (WA) and should not be reused. A Centaur is usually understood as a KN compound piece (also known as knighted King or crowned Knight). The piece you name Centaur is usually known as Ferfil (Fearful being a wordplay on that) or as Modern Elephant.

For list of piece names, you may consult these references:

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/whos-who-on-8x8.html (My favorite reference list, because you can find a piece when you know its approximate strength)

http://www.chessvariants.com/index/mainquery.php?type=Piececlopedia&category=&startswithletter=&language=English&daysyoung=0&daysold=0&minyearinvented=&maxyearinvented=&boardrows=0&boardcols=0&boardlevels=0&boardcells=0&authorid=&inventorid=&orderby=LinkText&usethisheading=Search+Results&displayauthor=on&displayinventor=on&regexpurl=&regexplinktext=

(The long link above gives a list of Variant Chess piece article in the piecoclopedia on this site)

And an  external link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece

Jörg Knappen

I also love your pieces, specially the Werewolf and the Unicorn that are new to me.

Thanks, they are very basic units, because the move of orthodox Knight often explained the same way as moves of Werewolf and Unicorn are. But the Knight is jumping over the first square, while the Unicorn/Werewolf can stay there.

Werewolf/Unicorn were the first invented units but later Pegasus became my favourite unit, because its movement is very easy but its abilities are wonderful and I was very surprised why there are many such units as R2, R3, R4, R5 which are only weaker versions of Rook, but no one is jumping R3, although the Pegasus is the strongest basic orthogonal leaper which is balanced (jumping R4 is imba on 8x8 boards). Pegasus is a real antipode of Rook (Griffin), playing on the same lines but by the opposite way, preferring closed rather than open lines.

The "jumping rook" and "jumping bishop" pieces are known as "ski rook" and "ski bishop" (think of ski jumping!) for a long time, for a reference see, e.g., here: http://www.mayhematics.com/q/mccs.htm

I was very surprised when I didn't find the same pieces in fairy lists, because in my opinion they have very simple, almost basic, mechanics of move, much easier and more obvious than most fairy pieces. Someone had to invent something like them.

Since your Chess Variant is a themed or Humans, Elves and Orcs, some artistic freedom in piece nameing is generally granted, But I think you are going overboard in renaming the Human pieces (the standard Chess pieces) only to create unnecessary confusion.

I like orthodox pieces but don't imagine what the Bishop, Rook and Queen do at the battlefield and why they are battle units? I understand that the orthodox pieces are likely to retain their old names, but still suggest alternative names. On the other hand, orthodox names may be used and reserved as type names, for example Griffin, Pegasus and Wyvern are Rooks.

Also, the name Phoenix is given traditionally to another piece (WA) and should not be reused.

Yes, but I can't imagine any other unit as elvish "champion". Maybe the Dragon, but the Dragon is already used by Orcs. The Pegasus is almost ideal alternative, but it makes the Angel and the Dragon incomparable with them and need to find extra new names (and for the Elvish Rook too).

A Centaur is usually understood as a KN compound piece (also known as knighted King or crowned Knight). The piece you name Centaur is usually known as Ferfil (Fearful being a wordplay on that) or as Modern Elephant.

I'm thinking to rename Centaur to Harpy, but doubt because the Harpy is the 3rd flyer unit (Wyvern, Dragon). The Elephant is bad because it associated with clumsy, but this unit is much more agile. The main problem of "usually known" names is the same as orthodox names - they are not thematic (if we include several pieces to the same army) and often not logic.

There is a huge number of different names of fairy pieces, and it is a problem for any developer. Because if you want to use, for example, the image of the Dragon or the Griffin to thematic army, suddenly you find that these pieces are already exist but they do not at all what you need for the game and for the balance.

The names are controversial, but at least now they are 100% relevant to the theme and how these units work (for all new people who don't know any peaces besides orthodox). I can't find another good names, to achieve two goals at once, that's why I had chose only thematic names. I'm opened to new suggestions for names, but thematic and logic are the most important aspects.

Maybe, I should rename Fairy to Sprite, and Pegasus to Valkyrie. Valkyrie is something that can be Elvish Queen instead of Phoenix, but which name give to Elvish Rooks?

H. G. Muller

If I'll want to make Elvish Pawns have leaping push like spartan pawns:
h:70  15,E4  17,E4 16,5 15,6 17,6
E4 means this leaping push?

If I'll want to make Orcish Pawns have promotion only to Nightriders (unique unit, which is absent in starting army), then I would put the Nightrider to #7 (or #9 black), moving the Orcish Queen to the end of list, it will work correctly?

I think that promotion to Nightriders is "positive" nerf making Orcish games more interesting than standard promotion (to Dragon usually). And this is better than a ban of castling or a single ban of promoting to Dragon. I like Nightriders but as a rare option, not at starting army (because it is upgraded Knight and have difficult move). It is interesting that although Nightrider is stronger than a Rook/Wyvern, it can't checkmate a bare King (need the second Nightrider). The same story with the other Orcish Knights - Werewolves.

While there are lots of evil creatures (to be associated with the Orcs) in Tolkiens legendarium, the number of good or ambivalent races is rather limited. There are Goblins, Hobgoblins, Uruk-Hai, Trolls, Balrogs, Dragons and Worms, Wargs, and the Nazgul with their (unnamed) flying animals.

For the airforce of the "good ones", there are the Eagles (taking part in the Battle of Five Armies). Than, there are the Ents, and maybe an Ent is a good picture for a rookish piece. Of course you can look up other mythologies for suitable names.

Jörg Knappen

Eagles are bad because there are Griffins (Human Rooks), which are hybridize eagles. Ents are good, but require redefining all the Rooks from flyers to something siege. There is no problems for Orcs because of Cyclops instead of Wyverns. But there is a problem for Human, because the closest analogue is Elephant (instead of Griffin). As an alternative there is a (sieged) Tower, usually associated with the Rook (by image), but I'm not sure that it is a good unit.

In general, there is a very interesting idea to use exactly Tolkien's setting, but I'm afraid that I haven't enough imagination to find matching units for all 3 races.

"E4 means this leaping push?"

Indeed. Fairy-Max uses the primary rights-code '4', which would mean a move without any rights and without continuation (which thus would be totally useless) as an 'escape' for indicating moves that only 'virgin' pieces have. The preceding hex digit is then used to indicate what the move can actually do: a slider step creating e.p. rights on the visited square, (which is interpreted as castling on a royal piece), a sliding step creating no e.p. rights, or a jump over the square. The lowest two bits would specify the rights for the next (terminating) step. For E = 1110 this would be move-but-not-capture

"If I'll want to make Orcish Pawns have promotion only to Nightriders (unique unit, which is absent in starting army), then I would put the Nightrider to #7 (or #9 black), moving the Orcish Queen to the end of list, it will work correctly?"

That might not work. IIRC Fairy-Max will always use #7 for both sides, unless the initial setup would contain a #7 for white, and a #9 but not #7 for black. So if black does not initially have #9... Of course the code can be easily changed; the rule that each side promotes to #7 if it has a #7 in the initial setup, and to #9 otherwise, irrespective if they have it or not would have the same effect in all currently supported variants. And Fairy-Max 5.0 takes the promotion piece from a board-size table ayway (to make Grant Acedrex possible, where the piece is determined by the promotion square).

Before version 5.0 Fairy-Max did have problems with Nightriders, because these make mutual perpetual chack possible, Sooner or later the search would stumble on a position where this occurred, and because each check evasion extends the search by 1 ply (i.e. the check evasions are not counted in the search depth), this wouldleed to infinitely deep recursion, and a crash due to stack overflow. But Fairy-Max 5.0 doeshave in-search recognition of repetitions, and I think this should cure thisproblem. (Otherwise Griffons (in theGrant Acedrex sense) would also have been a problem, as these can do this too.

Current statistics with Fairy-Max:

Human-Orc: 40,1% (human) by 500 games
Orc-Human: 43,6% (human) by 500 games
Human < Orc, 41,85% by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)

Elf-Orc: 42,3% (elf) by 500 games
Orc-Elf: 40,8% (elf) by 500 games
Elf < Orc, 41,55% by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)

Human-Elf: 49,2% (human) by 500 games
Elf-Human: 48,1% (human) by 500 games
Human = Elf, 48,65% by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)

Unit's power by statistics (500 games per unit):

Hero = 3.0

Footman = 1.0
Knight = 3.25
Monk = 3.5
Griffin = 5.0
Angel = 9.5

Guard = 1.15
Centaur = 3.1
Werewolf = 3.85
Wyvern = 4.7
Dragon = 8.7

Fairy = 1.2
Hunter = 2.4
Unicorn = 4.05
Pegasus = 5.2
Phoenix = 8.2

Overall:
Human = Elf
Orc > Human/Elf by 0.6 pawn

I think that there are two good ways to balance Orcs:
1) Orcish pawns promote only to Nightriders (special unit) but it seems as too big nerf, or
2) Orcish pawns promote only by simple turn (don't promote automatically)

In both cases I need to configure promotion at Fairy-Max.

Update rules:

Guards (Orcish Pawns) can promote only to minor pieces: Werewolves (Orcish Knights) and Harpies (Orcish Bishops).

Update statistics:

Human-Elf: 49,2% (human) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Elf-Human: 48,1% (human) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Human = Elf, 48,65% (human) by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)

Human-Orc: 48,2% (human) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Orc-Human: 47,7% (human) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Human = Orc, 47,95% (human) by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)

Elf-Orc: 50,3% (elf) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Orc-Elf: 48,1 (elf) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Elf = Orc, 49,2% (elf) by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)

Update units' power:

King: Hero = 3.0

Queen: Angel = 9.8
Rook: Griffin = 5.0
Knight: Knight = 3.3
Bishop: Monk = 3.3
Pawn: Footman = 1.0

Queen: Dragon = 9.0
Rook: Wyvern = 4.8
Knight: Werewolf = 3.9
Bishop: Harpy = 2.9
Pawn: Guard = 1.1

Queen: Phoenix = 8.6
Rook: Pegasus = 5.1
Bishop: Ranger = 2.2
Knight: Unicorn = 4.1
Pawn: Sprite = 1.2

It was surprising for me, but as it has appeared, that a pair of Unicorns can ckeckmate a bare King without the help of the own King, like a pair of Werewolves. The demonstration of this: Unicorns

Update rules.

Remove next rule:

0. Elvish Knights and Elvish Bishops are exchanged with starting places: Knights stay on the files "c", "f" and Bishops stay on the files "b", "g" (need to defend all Elvish Pawns)

This rule was introduced because of Elf-Elf mirror matchup, having 1. Qc3 move attacking g7 Pawn (and opponent must reply 1.... gf6 or ef6, because if Qe6 then 2. Bc4!).

But this rule has influence to Elf-Human matchup, having 1. Rh4 attacking h7 pawn (and if 1.... g6 or Nf6 then 2. Bd4).

So I think this questionable rule must be cancelled.

Now I start to get new statistics of mathups, with Fairy-Max auto battles:

• at 1000 ELO (0.6 sec per 40 moves)
• at 1400 ELO (6 sec per 40 moves)
• at 1800 ELO (1 min per 40 moves)
• at 2000 ELO (10 min per 40 moves)

How I get these ELO? I have ~95% winrate FIDE chess White vs Black when 1st White engine has 10 times more time than 2nd Black engine.

At low ELO I can get statistics very quick and modify rules to balance sides for it. But at higher ELO I can get statistics much slower, and can just check if balance is OK or not.

~10 000 games must be played for 1% accuracy (~100 games has only 10% accuracy - even equal sides may play 60-40).

I think the only things to be modified must be promotion rules. For example, introducing limitation of Orcish Pawns to promote only minor Pieces, lower Orcish winrate from 58% to 52%. Now I think that Elves and Orcs are a little stronger than orthodox Humans (~+2% winrate) and this point must be fixed.

Also, the most interesting thing is getting Pawns and Pieces values (at different ELOs). By statistics and changing start Pieces I can get only starting values. For example, starting values of orthodox Knight and Bishop are equal.

But there is also mid values which can be used at middle-game exchanges (theoretically, these mid values are best values for Fairy-Max engine, i.e. with these values Fairy-Max must have maximal winrate (vs engines with other values). For example, mid values of orthodox Bishop will be greater than orthodox Knight, because having less Pieces and Pawns at the board than at start.

Now I think that Guard (Orcish Pawn) must have promotion to Harpy (Orcish Bishop) only (earlier they can promote to Werewolf also). This is about 2% winrate nerf of Orcs.

Returning Rangers (Elvish Bishops) and Unicorns (Elvish Knights) to their natural starting positions ('c' and 'f' files for Bishops, 'b' and 'g' files for Unicorns) maybe is about 2% winrate nerf of Elves too.

In future, I will check update of race winrates (this will spend several days).

The mate with Wyvern animation is incorrect (this one), Wyvern moves one step there, you probably accidentally put Griffin mate there. Proper mate would look something like this

I love this universe! (´ ˘ `)

Thats cool. The AI doesnt seem to understand checks from Wywerns (ski rook) though, it will happily move its king into check from them.

Thats cool. The AI doesnt seem to understand checks from Wywerns (ski rook) though, it will happily move its king into check from them.

Ughh, the JavaScript from the Asymmetric Chess comment and the CwdA comment had some variables with the same name (because I of course cloned the latter to make the former), and when they are on the same page (as they are, in the comments listing) one uses the variables of the other. With as a result that in Asymmetric Chess there was a second King piece type, which was not considered royal.

Were you playing on the comments page, or did you create a separate page for the comment first by clicking 'View'?

View. I just set white to orc, move black king to e6 and move wywern to h3 (as a setup), click play and move wywern to e3 to give check. The AI responds with knight to c6, ignoring the check.

1. Ke6 Yh3 2. Ye3 N'c6

The AI responds with knight to c6, ignoring the check.

OK, fixed. Thanks for spotting this. The problem was in the j prefix for indicating ski-slides. (The alternative definition gyafW did work without problems.) The Betza parser splits such a move into 2 legs, one to jump over the adjacent square, and a remaining normal slide. But it adapts the range of that slide by subtracting 1 (so that jR4 moves 2, 3 or 4 steps.) Infinite range is indicated by 0, however, and this was adapted to -1. Now the move generator of the AI (in contrast to that of the UI) did not interpret the -1 as an infinite slide, but as a slide up to half the board. I now changed the Betza parser such that it refrains from decrementing a range of 0.

I just realized that in universal diagram, only white can promote (presumably because white pawns are first to be defined)

Oops, that is indeed a problem. The promotin pieces must always be defined first, so that maxPromote can specify how many promoting types there are. CwdA did not have this problem, as they had only one type of Pawns, defined first in the common part. I guess I must glue the variable parts of the diagram together a bit more carefully to get the desired order (using more + delimiters in the stored definitions to split them up). I will work on it.

A very well designed variant, reminds me of Starcraft.

More like Warcraft.

the ferz knight in this interactive diagram is wrongly colored for black

the ferz knight in this interactive diagram is wrongly colored for black

Not for me. Try to flush your browser cache; this problem was already detected and fixed in Herculean Chess, and that fix should be effective here too.