Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Piececlopeida: Advancer. Moves like a Queen, but captures by approach.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sat, Feb 24 09:35 PM UTC:

To temper my previous comment for the Withdrawer, this illustration for the Advancer is much meaningful. Here it looks like a chess piece.


Bob Greenwade wrote on Mon, Sep 11, 2023 02:26 AM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 01:31 AM:

... I've also been getting really good results with DreamShaper.

Nice that you mention this. I have it a while with about a dozen or more possibilities (not including three or four tries at getting it to understand what a centaur is), and all I got decent results for were Exorcist, Tax Collector, and Vulture (and an almost good one for a Bharal). That's actually more than I expected.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, Sep 11, 2023 01:40 AM UTC in reply to Max Koval from 01:03 AM:

Chess pieces are generally not art items, but rather products of industrial design that can be mass-produced, so a different approach is required.

They are both, and there are plenty of examples of the former.

They should be simple to be made by a hobbyist, using a lathe or 3D printer, ergonomic, and distinctive. Why not include such files (which will be eventually made by someone) in every Piececlopedia article?

We can do that if someone supplies them, but it's not an either/or matter of doing only one or the other. The AI art is for stimulating the imagination, not for constructing physical pieces.


Bob Greenwade wrote on Mon, Sep 11, 2023 01:31 AM UTC in reply to Max Koval from 01:03 AM:

They should be simple to be made by a hobbyist, using a lathe or 3D printer, ergonomic, and distinctive. Why not include such files (which will be eventually made by someone) in every Piececlopedia article? There's no need to create a design classic, just something that can be very simple, yet different and efficient. It should be compatible with a standard Staunton-like chess set.

I fully agree here. Of the designs I've seen, I think Jean-Louis's come the closest (certainly, mine don't fit with Staunton designs, or at least scant few do).


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, Sep 11, 2023 01:31 AM UTC in reply to Max Koval from Sun Sep 10 09:56 PM:

just see that if you request an AI image of a human, they will have from 3-4 to 7 and possibly even more fingers, a very bizarre phenomenon on the subject which shows that as of today AI still misses many details.

Leonardo.Ai allows the use of different models. I guess these are different algorithms for drawing that have been trained on different sets of images, and different ones give different results. While some act as you describe, the PhotoReal model, which I'm currently paying to use, does not, and I've also been getting really good results with DreamShaper.


Max Koval wrote on Mon, Sep 11, 2023 01:03 AM UTC:

Instead, I would find it to be worth developing new and simplest possible designs that can be associated with a particular chess piece if it had no physical design before. Chess pieces are generally not art items, but rather products of industrial design that can be mass-produced, so a different approach is required. They should be simple to be made by a hobbyist, using a lathe or 3D printer, ergonomic, and distinctive. Why not include such files (which will be eventually made by someone) in every Piececlopedia article? There's no need to create a design classic, just something that can be very simple, yet different and efficient. It should be compatible with a standard Staunton-like chess set. All of these images are instantly incompatible if placed together with usual chessmen, which is also an important criterion aside from their artistic side.

In 9x9 Modern chess, they used a minister's hat for the minister (BN compound), it was simply designed as a usual chess king with a cylinder hat instead. It looked really simple and efficient and could be easily made on a lathe. In a slightly more sophisticated way, they made excellent designs for the Champion and Wizard in Omega Chess, It's sort of sad that they discontinued selling them, but with enough skill, they can be also made out of wood or be printed, although I'm not sure about the copyright issues.


Max Koval wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 09:56 PM UTC in reply to H. G. Muller from 11:58 AM:

H.G., it is indeed solely based on the product for me. It is not about the AI itself, I'm completely fine with that. It is simply not ready yet to produce pictures of actual value. I can say that pretty much all AI generations lack something that I would call harmony or function. I just feel it this way, possibly because I had formal exposure to this area. It's a picture merged from thousands of pictures. An approximation. Despite approaching it very closely, there are no real harmonical relations between parts, and if you don't notice it, just see that if you request an AI image of a human, they will have from 3-4 to 7 and possibly even more fingers, a very bizarre phenomenon on the subject which shows that as of today AI still misses many details. My feeling here is solely based on the properties of the shape itself. AI can produce interesting and sometimes unique results, especially with tight prompting, but the image will never look really finished, and, therefore, its value is the value of a sketch. Many artists and other people are fine with that. If that works, then it's okay. This chess piece looks really great, but, there's something that is just left incomplete.

I myself generated many pictures based on works by a single artist that I like. Without the correct prompting, it looked tacky as hell, but when AI seems to have limits in what it does, the results approach the definition of astonishing.


Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 07:18 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 04:09 PM:

I was speaking of illustrators in the context of the boardgames edition, not in the case your activity. What I'm saying is a fact, a reality that has already started. For authors, I was meaning authors of games, not books, in the context of my discussion. It includes chess variants too. It is a not reality yet although you had yourself presented your own experience with Chat GPT few monthes ago. Time will tell


Bob Greenwade wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 06:18 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 04:17 PM:

I did get a kind of Centaur when I asked it to draw a chess piece of a doe. But it was a lady centaur with bare breasts and a weird horn on one side of her head. When I repeated the prompt, I got a hornless deer, which is what I was originally going for. See the Withdrawer page for that image.

Oh! The lady centaur (a centauride) would've been great for the Amazon page, as an Amazonrider, which I call Centauride... well, if not for those two other details.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 05:53 PM UTC in reply to Max Koval from 08:10 AM:

I didn't mean the idea of a picture, since it appropriately depicts the supposed chess piece. I meant an artistic idea, something that fully gives a form its value, basically the opposition of kitsch.

If I could have an idea of what I wanted the AI to draw, I could also have an artistic idea of how it should look. After all, I'm not just going with the first thing the AI gives me. I keep having it generate different images until I am satisfied with the result.

Turning to another example of my artistic activity, I have been recreating some albums with playlists on Spotify, and I have been using AI to create the cover art. Although I did not perform any of the music in these playlists, I had an artistic idea for how they should come together. For a couple albums, Kind of Blue and Switched-On Bach, I have five cover albums for each one, each one designed around a different artistic vision of how to recreate the album. For the cover art, too, I have had artistic ideas about how they should look. You can find my playlists on my Spotify profile.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 04:17 PM UTC in reply to Bob Greenwade from Sat Sep 9 11:38 PM:

Apparently, nobody else knows how to make a decent piece that looks like a Centaur either. (I sure don't, but I also can't find anything that really says "centaur" anywhere else either.)

I did get a kind of Centaur when I asked it to draw a chess piece of a doe. But it was a lady centaur with bare breasts and a weird horn on one side of her head. When I repeated the prompt, I got a hornless deer, which is what I was originally going for. See the Withdrawer page for that image.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 04:09 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 12:16 PM:

Being also involved in the creation of boardgames, what is bothering our community is that the work of illustrators is now at risk. We have seen some editors using AI to get the illustration of their box. Many illustrators risk to become jobless. Well, maybe you think it is not a problem, but next it will be the turn of the authors as well. I confess I'm troubled by all this.

While AI art may put some jobs at risk, I am not putting anyone out of a job by using it, because I have never hired artists in the first place. So, while I recognize the larger societal issue, I don't see my use of the technology as exacerbating the issue.

I expect it will be harder to replace authors than to replace illustrators. When I generate AI art, it often comes out wrong, and I have to use my own judgement on whether to keep or reject it. This is not too hard with art, because I can quickly tell by looking at it whether it is suitable. Even so, I can't get AI art to follow precise instructions, and I sometimes can't get anything suitable. As for the written word, someone would have to actually read it to tell whether it is any good, and that will take more time. Even if AI books start coming out, I think people will put more trust in books written by humans. So, I don't think AI-generated text is as much of a danger for writers.


H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 01:29 PM UTC in reply to Bob Greenwade from 01:27 PM:

Make the horse part prance, supported on its hind legs and tail for robustness.


Bob Greenwade wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 01:27 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 12:08 PM:

@Jean-Louis: I did not mean any disparagement toward your Centaur piece; as for the looks of my own pieces, I plead guilty as charged.

The horse's head thing is what holds me back from designing a Centaur; I get a man's head and upper body for sure, but I'm at a loss as to how to represent the horse on the lower part.


Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 12:16 PM UTC in reply to H. G. Muller from 11:58 AM:

Being also involved in the creation of boardgames, what is bothering our community is that the work of illustrators is now at risk. We have seen some editors using AI to get the illustration of their box. Many illustrators risk to become jobless. Well, maybe you think it is not a problem, but next it will be the turn of the authors as well. I confess I'm troubled by all this.


Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 12:08 PM UTC in reply to Bob Greenwade from Sat Sep 9 11:38 PM:

@Bob: speak for you. I'm quite happy of the Centaur I designed myself, and that actually printed to verify it is printable. I don't like when you say "nobody else knows how to make a decent piece that looks like a centaur". Believe me I could say the same thing of many pieces that you post here everyday.

Speaking of a Centaur, too many people are making a piece with a horse's head, just forgetting that a centaur has a horse's body and a human head.


H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 11:58 AM UTC in reply to Max Koval from 08:10 AM:

Seems to me this is nothing but bias. One cannot know such 'artistic ideas' behind art/kitsch, and would have to judge the aesthetic appeal solely based on the product. If you cannot make the destinction without knowing who created the work, it is just an illusion.


Max Koval wrote on Sun, Sep 10, 2023 08:10 AM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from Sat Sep 9 04:09 PM:

That's not true, though. I had an idea of what I wanted it to draw, and I rejected many images that did not fit my idea as well as this one did.

I didn't mean the idea of a picture, since it appropriately depicts the supposed chess piece. I meant an artistic idea, something that fully gives a form its value, basically the opposition of kitsch.


Bob Greenwade wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2023 11:38 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 04:49 PM:

Apparently, nobody else knows how to make a decent piece that looks like a Centaur either. (I sure don't, but I also can't find anything that really says "centaur" anywhere else either.)

It doesn't bode well for my wish to examine further Mann/leaper compounds, such as with Camel, Zebra, Okapi, Bison, etc.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2023 04:49 PM UTC in reply to Bob Greenwade from 04:18 PM:

It could also be used for a Ram, as that's what I told it to draw a chess piece of. I was lucky that this piece was already represented as a ram, and the AI knew how to draw one. I've been having a lot more trouble with Coordinator, which I'm not sure how to represent, and Centaur, which it just doesn't know how to draw.


Bob Greenwade wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2023 04:18 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 04:09 PM:

I agree with Fergus. This piece looks nice as an Advancer (though I'd name it Ram), and I'd use it on a board if it existed. I had an even more impressive result when I experimented to see what a Malkia (West African queen; QZ) would look like. (I wish I'd saved the pic!)

If only there was some way to get a whole set that way.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2023 04:09 PM UTC in reply to Max Koval from 12:05 PM:

It does look impressive indeed, and I like this idea, but it must be said that essentially all AI art lacks actual aesthetical, and hence representative worth, not because it was made by an algorithm but because it's just one of the possible approximations, without a clear idea behind it.

That's not true, though. I had an idea of what I wanted it to draw, and I rejected many images that did not fit my idea as well as this one did.


Max Koval wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2023 12:05 PM UTC in reply to Bob Greenwade from 06:31 AM:

It does look impressive indeed, and I like this idea, but it must be said that essentially all AI art lacks actual aesthetical, and hence representative worth, not because it was made by an algorithm but because it's just one of the possible approximations, without a clear idea behind it.

There must be a thesis behind the form. It's what makes AI generations worthless because there can be endless combinations, and all of them will lack it.


Bob Greenwade wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2023 06:31 AM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 05:26 AM:

Hover over the pic, and you can see that they were drawn by the new Leonardo AI art generator.

I've experimented a little bit with Img2go, and I get similarly impressive results.


Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2023 05:26 AM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from Fri Sep 8 08:33 PM:

@Fergus: how do you do this "with AI"? Can you explain? The result (Advancer, Antelope) is incredible.


25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.