[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Thu, Nov 22, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Gert Greeuw wrote on Mon, Nov 19, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★Ultima is very interesting, I play it with Zillions (not strong). However, I tried to find game annotations and I could not find any. It would be nice if you could give some games and some open sources. I wonder if there exists opening and endgame theory. Gert Greeuw [email protected]
David Howe wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 03:47 PM UTC:Ultima Variants. See <a href="http://www.chessvariants.com/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=243">Peter Aronson's comment</a>.
<br>Ultimate Ultima. See <a href="http://www.chessvariants.com/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=237">Gnohmon's comment</a>.
<p>Thanks for your good treatment of Ultima. It seems like this game is a common assignment for computer science students in AI classes. My programming class just had to make a 'Baroque Chess' program, and I put mine on my web page as an applet, just in case you want to link to it.</p>
<p><a href='http://people.tamu.edu/~jwp2654'>http://people.tamu.edu/~jwp2654</a></p>
<p>Thanks again for the help your site offered in designing the program. BTW, I did cite your website in my program report. :-)</p>
<p>
Jesse Plymale <br>
[email protected] <br>
http://people.tamu.edu/~jwp2654/
</p>
I notice that Robert Abbott has had some correspondance where he agrees on some simple changes to the Ultima rules to correct the flaw that he saw in the original game design (that defence was more effective than offence). Would it be possible to add an Ultima variant here that incorporates the 'revised' rules? Having played Ultima (very intermittently) since my schooldays, I have to say that I think the proposed revisions make sense... regards mike
Robert Abbott has to officially say what are the definitive changes. I have ever been interested in ULTIMA, and I have played it enough for feel myself some of the problems with the game play, but it is necessary to say that regadless of its problems, ULTIMA is a great game. When cleared the new rules officially, perhaps I can try an implementation on Zillions, and in every case, the game can be played NOW with the new rules (if desired) using the PBM system...
I wonder if anyone has told Robert Abbott the various Ultima derived games
that have been posted on this site?
<p>
There are (at the very least):
<ul>
<p><li><a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/rococo.html'>Rococo</a>
by Peter Aronson and David Howe.
<p><li><a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/stupid.html'>Stupid</a>
by Paul Monckton.
<p><li><a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/optima.html'>Optima</a>
by Michael Howe.
<p><li><a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/dpieces.dir/maxima/maxima.html'>Maxima</a>
by Roberto Lavieri.
</ul><p>
There are probably others I didn't think of (I did not include all of the
games that use pieces from Ultima, which are legion). These games are also
'repairs' of Ultima in a sense, and perhaps appeal to me more than
weakening the Long Leapers and Coordinators.
One thing I disagree with Ultima (and Rococo or Maxima) is the presence of two Long Leapers and one Withdrawer, because a Long Leaper is even stronger than an Advancer. The Immobilizer and Pincer Pawns are also too strong, (Maxima demotes them slightly.) As for the Coordinator, I am not so sure. In that respect, Chess is very balanced. (2 Knights are slightly inferior to 2 Bishops, which are slightly inferior to 8 Pawns, which are slightly inferior to 1 Queen, which is slightly inferior to 2 Rooks.) I would suggest to use a King, a Withdrawer, an orthogonal Coordinator, an orthogonal Immobilizer, two diagonal Chameleons, two Leapers capturing like the Knights in Peter Aronson's Jumping Chess, and eight Pincer Pawns moving one square forward (two if they are on their starting position). Castling, promotion (as is already the case in Rococo) and en passant are back. The Immobilizer and the Chameleon still immobilize all adjacent pieces, but the Chameleon captures a Pincer Pawn with a diagonal move. Maybe adding one or two Advancers in hand (perhaps moving like a King) would constitute a good subvariant.
Well, Antoine, tastes do vary, which probably explains why we have quite
so many games on this site. I tend to like aggressive games with furious
play myself (although not all of my designs have that characteristic). As
for there being two of the strongest piece, well, that's true for Shataranj
and Chaturanga too, and <u>those</u> games certainly have some history.
I have always been an Ultima fan. This game was the major inspiration for Rook Mania (which incidentally spent about three years in development, and which I am developing a more 'traditional' version of). It amy be true that this game favors defense over offense, and it may not be a perfect game, but the concept -- having all the pieces move similarly, but capture differently -- is a purely beautiful one. I also agree with Mr. Aronson that the imbalance of pieces is not necessarily bad, although I do not necessarily agree with his analogy -- the reason those games faded out of popularity was probably in favor of more balanced ones.
Well, it can be proposed an ULTIMA modification by committee, but it is the need to stablish what the objectives are. Some of us want aggressive games, others can be inclined to clarity, or a balanced game, or looking for special dynamics. My position is near Peter´s: there is some variety of well thought games, each one with a particularity, trying to correct problems as interpreted by the developers with the own optics of each one. Sincerelly, I think that all of them are very good games, as it is, in its style, ULTIMA. New good variants can come, and some of them can be good games too. It is always possible to work in a collective project to modify ULTIMA rules mantaining as possible its original essence. The process need to be clarified in base to objectives previously stablished, and it is imperative a methodic testing of the results. Is it necessary?. Think in the answer to this question, and then make suggestions, if it is the case, some of us may be interested in collaborate in the project. For a while, I´m going to continue enjoying Rococo, Stupid, Optima, Maxima, and ULTIMA. Certainly, I like these games, all of them are enjoyable.
During my final year in school (1972/73) I was one of a group who
experimented with all sorts of chess variations, including Ultima. Our
source for the rules was not very good, even the name of the game was
wrong ('Ultama') and there were several flaws in the rules as we had
them - we had to debug them ourselves to make a playable game since we
did
not know of any 'official' source. We got one 'debug' right (the
Withdrawer must move directly away from the piece it is capturing) and
two
wrong: (a) the pawns captured by sandwiching the enemy piece between
*pawns*, not between a pawn and any piece, (b) the chameleon could
capture
pawns even on a diagonal move. In one contrived scenario, the chameleon
captured seven pieces at once by (a) starting off by withdrawing from the
withdrawer, (b) en route leaping a long-leaper, (c) landing in a
quadruple
pawn-sandwich and (d) co-ordinating with its own king to grab the
co-ordinator.
Naturally we tried variations. In one we pinched two large (matching)
corks from the chemistry lab, painted one black and introduced them to
the
game as the Protectors. A piece could move onto a Protector and, for as
long as it stayed there, was immune to capture. Another variation was to
rename the pawns Othellos - a piece captured by them was removed from the
board and replaced by an identical friendly piece.
And we didn't like the name 'co-ordinator' and tried to think of an
alternatve without success. Many years later I coined the Sindarin
(Elvish) word 'palangurth' based on two radicals meaning 'death from
afar' with reference to its method of capture.It looks very interesting. But since i haven't tried it i can't rate it.Just a silly question: in the Chameleon animation the example states that the Chameleon captures the enemy Withdrawer (at c1) by moving away from it. But how can that be possible? since 'The Withdrawer moves passively as an Orthodox Queen', and a long-leaper in c3 is blocking the way to an orthodox queen(since queens cannot leap). Does this mean that the chameleon can mimic two pieces at the same time?
Yes, that assumption would be correct. In fact, in the illustration, the white chameleon imitates four different types at once and puts the black King into check, since it could capture the King by replacement. This, however, brings another question to mind: Must a chameleon be adjacent to a King to capture it? Since there is an orthogonal restriction for them when capturing pawns, is there also a one-space restriction when checking the King?
--Jared
The web page states that the Chameleon can check the King from an adjacent square and this is correct per Abbott's rules for Ultima in 'Abbott's New Card Games'. He states that a Chameleon may capture a piece if it mimics it's move in direction and distance. So a pawn can only be captured by a Rook move and a King can only be checked from an adjacent square. Leaping a Long Leaper does not invalidate the mimic of another piece. This seems illogical at first glance but really is logical. The idea is that making a capture of one piece does not prevent the capture of others. If the Chameleon had made a Rook move away from a Withdrawer that sandwiched a Pawn, both captures would be allowed. Abbott believed that leaping a Long Leaper should not preclude other captures.
How does chameleon capture chameleon?
<blockquote><i>
How does chameleon capture chameleon?
</i></blockquote>
<p>
A Chameleon may not capture a Chameleon.
The Wikipedia page on Baroque Chess currently asserts that Robert Abbott did not invent the game, as can be discovered by reading the Fairy Chessmen by Lewis Padgett. I expect this is a bunch of nonsense and have explained why in the discussion area for Wikipedia's Baroque Chess page. However, I have not read the Fairy Chessmen and cannot get ahold of a copy. If anyone has read it, would you take a moment to either confirm my suspicions or to tell me how Ultima is described in this book? If someone will confirm my suspicions that the Wikipedia author doesn't know what he is talking about, I will go ahead and change that page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_chess
Ultima is a great game, regardless the opinion of the author, Robert Abbot, about 'what is wrong with Ultima'. The case is that many people around the world plays Ultima, and accept the game as it is. The game play is closed almost all the time, and it is not easy win this game, and draw is the most possible result in many games between two experienced players playing more or less well. If someone wants an improvement that add richness to the game play without the loss of the philosophy and main ideas behind Ultima, perhaps the most simple way is introducing two pieces missing with Queen movement: First, the Advancer, and second, The FIDE-QUEEN!. The idea is reduce the number of Long-Leapers and Chameleons to only one each, it is not clear the need of two of them, as pointed out by Antoine Fourriere. I have pre-tested a version with this new elements, and the game play is nice, more dynamic than the original game, but you can feel the essence of Ultima regardless the new changes. But this idea, and perhaps any other, could find resistance by the relatively numerous fans of this game, that continue playing it, as originally born.
George Moralidis wrote on Fri, Feb 13, 2004 05:06 AM UTC:Can you be a bit more specific? Where exactly would you place the Advancer and where would the Queen be placed? Would the Advancer change anyhow? You could make your suggestions to Ultima's creator himself at this page: http://www.logicmazes.com/games/ultima.html
ULTIMATUM, an ULTIMA variant. The proposal is simple: One Chameleon, one Long-Leaper. Add a FIDE-Queen and an Advancer per band. The suggested initial setup is s follows: (White): Immobilizer in a1, Withdrawer, Long-Leaper, King, Queen, Chameleon, Advancer and Coordinator, respectively in b1, c1,...,h1. For Black mirrored arrays, with Coordinator in a8, Advancer in b8, Chameleon in c8, followed by Queen, King, Long-Leaper, Withdrawer and Immobilizer. I doubt about the suicide rule, it would be not as good in this variant as in Ultima. The game play of this variant is very dynamic, but essence of ULTIMA is preserved, and it seems to be more inclined to attack than defense, at least while the new pieces are on the board. Game play in the edges is less effective, due the Queens and Advancers, and Immobilizer is more vulnerable. BETA-TESTERS NEEDED: If you want to test the variant, I can send to you a ZRF BETA, for tests purposes now (it has to be refined a little yet, but it is perfectly functional). If you are interested, e-Mail me. My adress: [email protected] , and I´ll send to you the compressed file.
Michael, I think the Leo is a good idea, but it is the need of diminish a little its power in this game. Unfortunatelly, Leo can conduct many stages of the openings with attack of pieces and checkmate threats, with an initial advantage for White. On possibility is that it moves like Queen, but limiting its action: it need an ADJACENT intervening piece for attack the next positions. I´ll try both of them in the next days. As it can be easely noted when you try the variant, FIDE-Queen is very powerful in Ultima, surprisingly it looks much more powerful here than in FIDE-Chess, and it is certainly more powerful than the Long-Leaper. Advancer is a little weaker, but LEO would be at least as powerful than the Queen. Peter: I have dowloaded the Rococo variants. I have not tried it yet, but I have the intuitive idea that the Archer is great for this game, but I have serious doubts about the Bird. Other thing: I have my own Gallactic Graphics and board for Rococo. I´ll send a copy to David and you, although Alfaerie are very nice too.
Roberto,
<p>
I'm not surprised that the FIDE Queen seems very powerful in Ultima -- all of the alternate forms of capture used in Ultima are weaker than replacement. Also, with a lack of other pieces capturing by replacement, guarding pieces isn't as easy as in FIDE Chess.
<p>
The Bird is almost certainly too powerful, but one of the pleasures of experimenting is to try such pieces and see what they tell you about the game and those forms of capture.
I had been looking for the rules of Ultima for the longest time. It is heartening to see it included here. I also feel that the rule description format is excellent.
Ultima is the best, nobody needs Ultima variants!.
A point I've never seen in the rules for Ultima or Rococo: can an Immobilizer immobilized by a Chameleon commit suicide? Logic suggests yes.
I don´t know if it is written somewhere, but I have seen that the practice answer in yes, an Immobilizer immobilized by Chameleon can commit suicide. This rule is also understood in Rococo and Maxima, and it is also implemented in this way in the Zillions versions of these games. Some people enjoys Ultima and some of its variants, as some people likes FIDE-Chess and some its variants. Why not?
I dug out my copy of 'Abbott's New Card Games' (1963, Funk and Wagnalls) and the suicide rule is stated thus: 'A piece that is immobilized does have one special move that it can make, that of suicide. A player may use a turn to remove from the board one of his own pieces that is immobilized.'
i have two questions about rules i am not completely certain on. 1/ can a pincer pawn capture more than one piece (in one direction)? e.g. if there is a friendly piece on f4, and enemy pieces on f2 and f3, can a pawn move to f1 and capture both? i think this is unlikely, but i want to check. 2/ can withdrawers capture by moving away on the diagonal from an enemy piece? e.g. enemy on g5, can a withdrawer capture it by moving from f4 to e3? thanks.
1. No, a Pincer Pawn can capture up to three pieces in different orthogonal directions, but it cannot capture two pieces in a row. 2. Yes, a Withdrawer can capture by withdrawing diagonally, a Long Leaper by jumping diagonally, an Immobilizer paralyzes diagonally and though a Coordinator captures in an orthogonal way, it may be through a diagonal move (say King on d1, Coordinator moving from h1 to b6 captures enemy pieces at b1 and d6).
thanks for the swift replies. that is how i initially thought the withdrawers must operate. but when playing my game of ultima in the tournament, i got in a position to take in this (diagonal) manner, but typed in my move and the piece remained on the board. so i changed my move. until i saw ben's next move, i did not realise that i had to manually (as it were) remove the piece from the board myself with a separate command. never mind! thanks again for the clarification.
carlos, the answers to your questions are: <P>
1) no <BR>
2) yes <P>
Ultima design analysis: # squares: 64 # piece types: 7 Piece-type density: 10.9% Initial piece density: 50% Power density: 84/64 = 1.31 Long diagonal: a1-h8 Est. piece values: P1, K2, W3, Co 3, Ca 4, L 5, I 8 Exchange Gradient: G = 0.505; (1-G)=0.495 Ave. Game Length: M = 3.5(Z)(T)/(P)(1-G) = (3.5*64*0.109)/(1.31*0.495) = 38 Moves Features: Unusual Pawns (pincer) may cohere with the chosen piece mix Comments: Prosaic values across the board confound evaluation.
Is there anywhere to play the game online, other than against applets?
I love the game, although when I used to play it the pawns moved one step orthoganally, could not be captured, and had still the (in that case) fairly unused ability to capture in a pincer fashion, one piece at a time.
They mostly just got in the way. Civilian pedestrians, as it were.
You can play this game using the Game Courier System, inviting someone (open or direceted) or accepting invitations. The first thing you have to do is register as user. Click on 'PLAY!' (main page of 'What´s New'), Click then on 'Game Courier System' and follow clicking on 'Register', It is free!. About the way you play the game, it is not adjusted to official rules. Certainly, you are an atipical ULTIMA player, usually this kind people is particularily resistant to changes in the game, and it is played preferently with the original rules. One 'improvement' of the inventor was rejected by the fans, and new 'improvements' to the original game are not usually very welcome, aparently.
a couple more questions. 1. can a king take by co-ordinating with the co-ordinator, or does it have to be after the co-ordinator's moves? 2. i assume that a king cannot move into check, and you have to tell your opponent if they do? i was playing against the applet linked off this page, and you have to actually capture the king rather than checkmate it. which is it? if white's co-ordinator is on f1, white's king on b1, and black's king moves onto say b7 from the c file... if the white co-ordinator has a clear run to f7, is black's move therefore illegal?
Answers: 1. can a king take by co-ordinating with the co-ordinator, or does it have to be after the co-ordinator's moves? No, King only captures by replacement. Co-ordinate capture is performed by the Coordinator, or by a Chameleon to capture an enemy Coordinator. King can´t do that. 2. i assume that a king cannot move into check, and you have to tell your opponent if they do? i was playing against the applet linked off this page, and you have to actually capture the king rather than checkmate it. which is it? Oficially, you can´t move into check. The object of the game is checkmate the enemy King. Zillions implementation adopts the 'capture-the-King' rule for technical reasons, the main reason is because if you immobilize the King and you use the checkmate rule, it is interpreted by Zillions as a Check, and it is not. 3. if white's co-ordinator is on f1, white's king on b1, and black's king moves onto say b7 from the c file... if the white co-ordinator has a clear run to f7, is black's move therefore illegal? Yes, this move is illegal, you are moving into check.
In April 2004 comment this same page I estimate those Ultima values in Design analysis: P1, K2, W3, Co3, Ca4, L5, I8, keeping integers. I haven't done C++ programming this decade, so don't know whether King's offensive value would be needed, depending on structure of program. Refining these estimates, maybe L closer to 5.5, and W>Co. [Further, I would enter P1, W3.1, Co2.9, Ca4.3, L5.3, I8.2, and see how that plays]
Those values are close to the subjective values I have stimated, although evaluation of positions in Ultima is more complex. Immobilized pieces values are significatively reduced, but it depends also on the vulnerability of the Immobilizer that is freezing the pieces, and in the fact that the Immobilizer is also immobilized or not, or it CAN be threatened to be immobilized. Pince-Pawn values strongly depends on the whole set of the own Pincers and other pieces, if there are more squares where Pincers can take enemies after hypothetic moves, higher is the Pincer value, and in some situations the value of a Pincer can be as high as the value of some major pieces, if the mobility of enemy pieces is reduced enough. Ultima tendence is to be a very defensive game, so this must be considered in the evaluation of positions. Long-Leaper value is high if the position is sparse, without many clusters of pieces, but it is low if there are massive clusters and/or the enemy pieces are positioned on squares of the edges, usually Long-Leaper value is high when Pincer values are high. Coordinator value depend strongly on the position of the King, if there are many enemy pieces on the orthogonals of the King, the Coordinator value increases a lot, regardless the imminence of a capture. Chameleon value increases if the Chameleon can attack positions where enemy pieces can go if that can hurt a lot after the hypothetic move, also if Chameleon can Immobilize the Immobilizer, and this value can be increase or decrease depending on the vulnerability of Chameleon. The Chameleon value is high if he can threaten the enemy King safely. This is a game not very easy for position evaluations, but I can suggest that good defensive moves must add something, and risky moves that allows counter-attacks or augment the enemy mobility must substract points.
I doubt whether all those contingencies of position will be worked into a program, unless someone wants to buy another Deep Blue. Instead, it just goes 3-, 4-,5-ply, whatever, based on set of values, as I remember games programs. Those values are somewhat compromises and estimates, also for what move it is, 10th, 20th, 30th. In Falcon Chess, Falcon starts at 7 points, and falls below Rook's 5 by the time there are fewer than 10 pieces/pawns. It is important to normalize, if possible, Pawn to 1 for a values table, like in my Design Analyses, even if, like a Cannon Pawn, it is 1.5, or 1.8, if actually matched with standard P; all values are relative.
Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Aug 5, 2004 12:14 AM UTC:<p>Thank you. This information is most helpful!</p>
<p>The previous anonymous poster does make a point about sliding piece values, and ChessV already supports this. In Orthodox Chess, for example, I evaluate the Rook starting with the Speilmann value of 4500 (relative to a 1000-point pawn.) The value then is scaled up by 50 points for each capture of any piece, starting with the 10th. So, when the board is down to only 12 pieces, for example, the rook is then evaluated at 5000. I don't know how much this applies to Ultima, but since the previous poster brought it up, I thought I would mention it.</p>
I have mentioned some basic conditions that can add or substract points in evaluation of positions, and sliding values of pieces based on positions and conditions may be important in this game, if you want a very strong program. How can slide these values up or down?. You can begin using gross estimators of adds and substracts based on the stablished conditions/positions, and then the values can be tunned by essay-and-error, running a few game tests (I´ll be happy offering part of my time doing it). Deep Blue?, I don´t think so, but it is possible the construction of a REALLY strong Ultima player, expert level, if CHESS-V supports sliding values of pieces and global evaluations based on positions/conditions. How good can be?. At least, it should be easy the construction of a program that can beat Zillions without difficulty (Zillions plays some variants superb, -if you don´t think so, try one of my games, DENEB-, and others very poorly, if you don´t think so, make the attempt of implementing Amazons... Zillions ULTIMA or ROCOCO level of play is not that of a novice, but I can say is not very strong playing these games, although it plays MAXIMA and FUGUE clearly better, in my game MAXIMA the piece values were artificially adjusted, but I´m not sure about all the reasons)
Of course I posted anonymously about sliding values based on things objective, i.e. especially Captures and Number of Moves, just standard programming. More mathematically, to go with Move Equation under Game Design topic, I also developed a Positional Advantage Equation. It measures a game from its rules for positional advantage potential. [Achernar], being Orthodox Chess with interesting but bizarre rules overlaid, would expect any basic program to play well.[I switched Achernar and Deneb, sorry]
One of the problems with the game play level of some Zillions files is just that you don´t have tools for adjust evaluations, adding or substracting points based on positions/ conditions, probably, the program does that, but it is a closed evaluation made by a general-purpose game program, and it is a black box for the programmer. Zillions plays some games better than others, and it is not easy seeing why. By example, Zillions plays Grand-Chess clearly better than Eurasian, and Shogi original ZRF plays like a novice (Fergus improved a lot the Shogi game play using Zillions, but he have had to tune some values and drops, and it was not easy). I expect the next version of Zillions can add new tools to help the programmer work, it is a need for some games implementation, like Amazons and others. The idea is not a Deep Blue, I don´t like extremely strong computer opponents because it can cause some frustration many times, but if you want play a particular game, at least you expect it can offer a good challange. ChessV is fine, it plays really well the most of the variants, but it is not unbeatable. For me, it is an excellent challenger, regardless I have to lose not so few games, I can draw sometimes and once in a while I can beat it!.
Why Zillions plays well Deneb?. I´m not sure, but I think one of the reasons is because in the ends are many 'royal' pieces, and the program can visualize in a good manner complex tactics in which more than one 'royal' piece is attacked after some moves, but the characteristics of the game may also help. No, I don´t think so any basic program can play this game well, Zillions A.I. seems to be, coincidentially, well adapted to this game.
Achernar?. Yes, George, I coincide with you, any basic program plays this game as bad as me or any other not very experienced player, this is a very complex game in which I have medited in the last times, it is nice, but I´m convinced it needs some important reforms, because I don´t want this game for people that have to spend years training with it, I want the game for happy people that wants have fun once in a while trying it. I´ll work on it in the next future.
Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Aug 7, 2004 07:25 PM UTC:<p>Dear Mr. Duke,</p>
<p>In your recent comments, you mention a Positional Advantage Equation, the details of which may be found under the Game Design topic. I am interested in <i>anything</i> related to mathetmatical analysis of positions, but I cannot find this Game Design forum...</p>
<p>Sincerely,<br>
Greg Strong</p>
Try this link. It was a little awkward to find: http://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Game+Design
I have not published Positional Advantage Equation, taking Mark Thompson's advice to write an article. Move Equation is M = 3.5N/P(1-G). I don't know where they index special topics; you see it scrolling back any of the talkers.
Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Oct 3, 2004 07:11 PM UTC:Since you all provided so much input into evaluation, I thought you might be interested in the various terms I used in the Ultima evaluation function for ChessV... I used George Duke's piece values of Pawn = 1000, Withdrawer = 3100, Coordinator = 2900, Chameleon = 4300, Long Leaper = 5300, and Immobilizer = 8200. All immobilized pieces are penalized -25% of their value. The Withdrawer gets a small bonus proportional to the value of the most valuable adjacent enemy piece (provided there is at least 1 square in the opposite direction for it to move into, although it need not be vacant presently.) The Coordinator gets a small bonus proportional to the number of enemy pieces on the same rank or file as the friendly King. The Chameleon gets a couple small bonuses: for standing adjacent to an enemy Withdrawer (if there is at least 1 square in the opposite direction to move into), and when the enemy coordinator is on the same rank or file as the friendly King. The Immobilizer gets no bonuses, instead immobilized pieces are penalized. The Long Leaper also has no bonuses, but only because I have no good answers here. Roberto correctly points out that the Long Leaper is more valuable if the enemy pieces are not clustered, and not on the edge, but I cannot think of a way to determine that without spending far too much CPU time. I will continue to think about it. Also, in the opening, pieces are given a bonus for the first move (development), a small penalty for moving twice, and a large penalty for moving the same piece three or more times. These adjustments are slowly scaled down as the game progresses into the middle-game.
Greg, I have tested three ULTIMA games using Chess V. Good effort!, I appreciate it a lot, but I have some observations. First, you can take the enemy King and the game continues without end. It happened with immobilized Kings in the three games, so I have not seen if it happens in other cases. The second observation is about the A.I. game play, it is possible that you have noted that Chess V is a weak ULTIMA player, (much more than I thought at first, surprisingly to me) and I noted a strong ingenuity with the Immobilizer power, perhaps you must augment the penalty for immobilized pieces to 50%, but it is necessary that the A.I. take also in account situations in wich the immobilizer is immobilized with a Chameleon and then be vulnerable in the future. I could capture the enemy immobilizer in this way twice. Kings can act in a better way in Coordination with the Coordinator, it is necessary augment the bonus in the position evaluation when there are more enemy pieces in line with the King after a King move. Pawn movement is ingenuous too, but it is not easy a solution, perhaps the best should be a good bonus in the position evaluation (not in the piece) for a movement that reduces the brut mobility of enemy pieces (number of squares the pieces can reach), and other bonus in the evaluation function (a bit less than the other) for a Pawn move that augments the number of potential capturing squares using the pawn moved, i.e., looking how many sandwiches can make the Pawn with own pieces, although there is or not an enemy piece between (covering potential). I know it is not easy improve a lot this game, but it should be good a revision. I´m very sorry I can´t help a lot with the code, but I´ll try to help you as I can.
Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Oct 3, 2004 11:00 PM UTC:The bugs you metion would a dramatic effect on play skill, even with a good evaluation function. I'll have to take care of those, and post an update ... Thanks for the test-report!
CHESS V BEATED ZILLIONS!. Well, Zillions is a weak ULTIMA player, and I have had curiosity in a test game with the two programs. The game have had not great quality, but it was clear that CHESS V played with much more concept, and it won in a good final. CHESS V game play should be improved, but it was a great thing that Zillions was beated. Congratulations, Greg!. To all the interested people, I can send the saved Zillions file.
Chess V, playing White, beated Zillions, 30sec. per player, in this ULTIMA test game: Zillions Save Game File Version 0.02 HC RulesFile=C:\Archivos de programa\Zillions Development\Zillions Demo\Rules\Ultima.zrf VariantName=Ultima 1. Pawn g2 - g5 1. Pawn a7 - a6 2. Pawn b2 - b5 2. Pawn f7 - f3 3. Pawn h2 - h4 3. Pawn c7 - c4 4. Pawn h4 - f4 x f3 4. Long-Leaper b8 - h2 x f4 5. Pawn c2 - c3 5. Long-Leaper h2 - e5 6. Pawn f2 - f5 6. Long-Leaper e5 - a5 x b5 7. Long-Leaper b1 - b3 7. Coordinator a8 - a7 8. Coordinator h1 - h2 8. Withdrawer d8 - c7 9. Withdrawer e1 - g3 9. Coordinator a7 - f2 x e2 10. Withdrawer g3 - h4 x f2 10. Pawn c4 - e4 11. King d1 - e1 11. Pawn e4 - a4 12. Long-Leaper g1 - g3 12. Pawn d7 - d6 13. Coordinator h2 - f2 13. Withdrawer c7 - c5 14. Withdrawer h4 - b4 14. Pawn a4 - a3 15. Long-Leaper g3 - e3 15. Pawn d6 - d4 16. Withdrawer b4 - a4 16. Long-Leaper a5 - b6 17. Withdrawer a4 - b4 17. Long-Leaper b6 - c7 18. Long-Leaper e3 - e6 18. Chameleon f8 - f7 19. Long-Leaper e6 - e4 19. Withdrawer c5 - d6 x b4 20. Pawn c3 - c4 x d4 20. Pawn b7 - a7 21. Pawn c4 - a4 x a3 21. Long-Leaper c7 - a5 22. Coordinator f2 - c5 22. Long-Leaper a5 - a3 x a4 23. Coordinator c5 - c3 23. Pawn a7 - c7 24. Pawn f5 - a5 24. Long-Leaper a3 - c5 25. Chameleon f1 - f5 25. Long-Leaper c5 - a7 26. Chameleon f5 - e5 26. Chameleon f7 - f2 27. King e1 - d1 27. Withdrawer d6 - c5 28. Pawn d2 - d5 28. Long-Leaper a7 - b8 29. Pawn a5 - b5 x c5 29. Long-Leaper b8 - b2 x b3 x b5 30. King d1 - c2 30. Pawn h7 - h5 31. Coordinator c3 - f3 x f2 31. Chameleon c8 - f5 32. Long-Leaper e4 - g6 x f5 32. Immobilizer h8 - h6 33. Chameleon e5 - f6 33. Pawn e7 - e5 34. Coordinator f3 - f5 34. Pawn c7 - c5 x d5 35. King c2 x b2 35. Long-Leaper g8 - c4 36. Pawn a2 - a3 36. Pawn h5 - h3 37. Chameleon c1 - b1 37. Pawn h3 - d3 38. Chameleon b1 - d1 38. King e8 - d7 39. King b2 - b1 39. Long-Leaper c4 - a4 40. King b1 - a2 40. Long-Leaper a4 - f4 41. Chameleon d1 - a4 41. Long-Leaper f4 - f3 42. Immobilizer a1 - d1 42. Long-Leaper f3 - h5 43. Immobilizer d1 - g4 43. Pawn a6 - a7 44. Chameleon a4 - f4 44. Pawn a7 - a8 45. Chameleon f4 - e3 45. Pawn d3 - d1 46. Chameleon e3 - d4 46. Pawn e5 - e3 47. King a2 - b3 47. Pawn c5 - e5 48. Coordinator f5 - e4 x e3 48. Pawn e5 - f5 x g5 49. Chameleon f6 - f7 49. Pawn a8 - a6 50. Coordinator e4 - e6 50. Pawn g7 - g8 51. King b3 - b4 51. Immobilizer h6 - g5 52. King b4 - c5 52. Pawn g8 - g7 x g6 53. Coordinator e6 - g6 x g5 53. Pawn d1 - d2 54. Coordinator g6 - h6 x h5 54. Pawn d2 - a2 55. Chameleon d4 - d6 55. King d7 - d8 56. Chameleon d6 - e7 56. Pawn a6 - a4 x a3 57. Chameleon e7 x d8
Comment on the game: ChessV vs. Zillions, 30 sec. per player per move. Opening was weakly played by both programs, and you can observe the that the Pawn movements are not the best in both. The game play was more tactical than positional, the pair King-Coordinator is not used in the best way, and Immobilizer potential-and-risks is not well appreciated. But Chess V 'understood' better the game philosophy, and the end was played relatively good by Chess V, although with clear deficiences by Zillions. Very interesting test game!.
Three tests more, Zillions playing White, Chess V playing Black, 10 seconds per move. Results: Chess V won 3-0 !. Chess V is still relatively weak playing against humans, but it is definitely stronger than Zillions. I have detected an important bug, as I said, that must be corrected inmediately: When Chess V King is immobilized, it appears that if you can capture it, the prgogram does not detect it is Checkmated, you capture the King and the game cam continue endless. Now I think that 50% of penalty for immobilized pieces is perhaps too much, but I suggest augment it a bit, 30%, but if your immobilizer is immobilized, the value of your immobilizer must fall at least to half. There must be an important penalty for an immobilized King, much more if the immobilizer is potentially safe, Chess V takes not a good care with its King sometimes against the enemy immobilizer. I´ll add more when I have more to add.
Well, in my fourth game against Chess V, the program beated me, playing in a good manner. I have not played bad, neither commited fatal errors or clear blunders. Analyzing the game, I have played different than in my previous three games, with a relatively open position. It seems that Chess V plays well this kind of instances.
Robert Abbott now has a set of Ultima puzzles on his website! http://www.logicmazes.com/games/puz1to4.html
In contrast to the Carrera family, which have less differentiation, Ultima-like games are more sharply delineated in their features, metaphorically like USA Colorado's 54 'fourteeners', not somewhat similar hills of Carrera-Capablanca terrain. I would much rather have invented the 'Rococo peak' within the Ultima family than the 'Gothic hill' in its family; yet that one stands out within its environment.
Nice description of the game of Baroque, but we always played it with
Leapers limited to capturing one piece, and multi-leaping was illegal; as
for deciding which Coordinator (aka 'Vaporizer') to turn upside down at
the start of the game, thereby turning it into an Immobilizer, that was
White's prerogative to do first, and Black had to choose second.
<p>There are (or at least WERE) versions of Baroque played on a 9x9 board,
with a 1 square Bomb occupying an extra square on the 1st rank, next to
the King on his right, if I recall correctly. An immobilized Bomb could
not explode on its own accord, but an Imitator (Mirror) could detonate it,
so long as it was not immobilized too. The 9x9 version - with a Bomb -
used to be called Renaissance. I think the history of the 'Bomb'
variation to Baroque was a matter of interference from the 1960s game of
'Camelot.' Blowing up both Kings resulted in a Draw. Anyway, like
Baroque, Renaissance ended with the capture of the enemy's King.
<p>Regards,
<p>Matthew Montchalin
<br>[email protected]
I am not sure what game or games are refered by Mr. Montchalin, and this is the first time I hear about Rennaissance, but I think here are mixed two known games, both from the 60's decade: Ultima and Bombalot. It is not clear which of these games was first, but I think it was Bombalot but not by much time between. Bombalot is a chaotic game with elements of the actual Ultima, but with Bombs, a lot of extremely powerful leaping and multi-leaping pieces instead of Pawns, similar to those in Camelot, Coordinator-Knights that coordinate one with the other and vice-versa, Tanks (Pushers), and Immitator (different from Ultima´s Chameleon, Immitator can move as the LAST enemy piece moved), an exotic Immobilizer that can leap adjacent pieces or move like a King, and without royal pieces in the game . I have played Bombalot in the past, and I have to say that this is one of the most unclear and chaotic game I have played, I think the game was certainly exotic in its epoch and it could produce certain commotion, but it seems it was not well tested in the game play, horrible in my personal opinion. I have not reference to Renaissace or the Ultima versions mentioned by Mr. Montchalin, so I will appretiate if he can give me more information about, if it can be found elsewhere.
Roberto,
<p>
Both the early version of <strong>Baroque</strong>, and the <strong>Ultima</strong> variant <strong>Renaissance</strong>, are described in the <u>Encyclopedia of Chess Variants</u>, the latter in the appendix.
Oh! Thanks for pointing me to that footnote on Renaissance. Insofar as
species of Baroque with Pushers and Pullers go, those kinds of pieces can
be deceptively treachorous. I've seen the game played both ways, but I
think that Pushers and Pullers were supposed to be able to affect all
pieces, not just enemy pieces, the only hard part is bringing them into
position to do so. Although Pushers and Pullers move like Queens, they
had to start out adjacent to the piece they were to affect. For one
thing, although they can't really capture pieces directly, they could get
other pieces to do their dirty work for them. For instance, under the
right circumstances, a Pusher could drive a friendly Pincher into a
position that pinches enemy pieces, and a Puller could pull a friendly
Withdrawer away from an enemy Immobilizer, thereby removing (capturing)
the Immobilizer. If two Kings are frozen in place by one another's
Immobilizers, but are fortuitously adjacent to each other, there are
positions where a friendly Pusher could drive its King into the square of
the enemy King, and win the game. Similarly, a Puller that was adjacent
to a Coordinator (Vaporizer), might step back a square and bring a
Coordinator into a 'coordinating' position to bring about a capture or
two.
<p>Naturally, regional rules tend to evolve as time goes on, and household
rules tend to admit to all kinds of variants, and I see nothing wrong with
that, so I was wondering how Jesse Plymale's Pushers and Pullers worked.
I tried to go to his Link, but the Link appeared to be broken.
<p>As for the game of Rococo, devised by Peter Aronson and David Howe, the
Pushme-Pullyu piece looks much more powerful than the Pusher and Puller of
Renaissance.
<p>Do you know if there is a chronological history of 'computer
championships' for Baroque or Ultima somewhere? Are computer tournaments
for these games held every couple years or so? I'm still exploring this
website, so it's possible I haven't stumbled on the right place yet.
<p>Regards,
<p>Matthew Montchalin
<br>[email protected]
I Have not seen Computer Ultima Tournaments. In fact, I have seen only a few engines that are capable of play Ultima. There is at least one Zillions of Games ZRF which plays it, but it is relatively weak. Greg Strong´s CHESS V plays better, and it is an excellent contendor for an experienced average player, although I can not say it plays at extremely high levels. It plays, I think, with an approximate rating between 2000-2200, if you can translate FIDE ELO to Ultima in some manner. If you have not tried CHESS V, you can mail Greg Strong, an active member of this site. I have not seen other efforts looking for stronger programs. On the other hand, Ultima is relatively 'popular' between humans in certain circles, most in Universities, and it is played in many places around the world, but not as Chess, of course, the difference in popularity is, say, 2000 to 1 or more. It should be interesting seeing Computer Tournaments, but I think it needs sponsors and prizes, and I do not know if there is interest enough on it. Some variants in this site are very interesting too: Rococo, Maxima, Fugue and Toccata, by example, are 'evolutive' consequences of Ultima, but much less known by the people. There are Zillions of Games ZRF´s for all these games, but they are not very strong.
Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Jun 16, 2005 05:31 PM UTC:<p>If you are interested in computer Ultima, please check out ChessV. It is free and open-source, and can be downloaded from:<br><a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv'>http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv</a><br>I would like to see computer competition, but at present, I believe that my program is the only one in the world that is even capable of implementing the rules correctly. (Zillions plays for capture-the-king instead of checkmate, which, for reasons difficult to explain, is different and does affect the way it plays. Zillions also plays this game very badly because it assigns material values to the pieces that are not even close.) I hope to add support for Rococo to ChessV in the near future. Zillions also does not play Rococo correctly; some complex Chameleon captures don't work right.</p>
Yes, the Chameleon in Ultima for Zillions can capture two adjacent Long-Leapers in the Chameleon line when the next square is empty. Maxima ZRF's corrects it. Mine is a capture-the-King implementation, and Joost Aan de Brough implementation uses the checkmate condition, although in the last one some pieces values are not the correct. I used some tricks for balance the values, but, unfortunatelly, I have had to generate some additional possible moves, and it has its influence in the computer game play force if you use little time for computer thinking. Chess V plays at a very good level, it should be interesting to see a Computer Tournament, Chess V should be a very strong competitor, because it is far from easy construct a 'master-level' Ultima computer player. If someone constructs one, I think there are not many humans that can beat that program; by the way, Chess V is a bit stronger than me, and I think I am a relatively good Ultima player, but far from master levels, if such concept applies in this game.
I'm giving serious thought to slapping together a program that plays
Renaissance in 68000 assembly language. Maybe Ultima (Baroque), too.
Regardless of the game, I don't expect it to perform very well against
machines with far faster processor speeds, but it just might produce some
useful benchmarks to test your programs against. (And thanks for the
link
to Sourceforge; I'm sorry to say that all that C++ stuff at Sourceforge
is
a trifle over my head as I was raised on assembler instead of C.) Still,
whatever I slap together, it only takes a handful of adjustments to
change
one game into the other.
The only things I'm a little bit uncomfortable about are:
1 the multi-leaping rule for the Leaper, and
2 the suicide rule for immobilized pieces.
Are those the main differences?
As for piece name nomenclature back in 1968, we learned 'Imitator' for
what Ultima calls a Chameleon. Does anybody use Mime, Mimic, or Mirror
for that piece as well? The one that looks like a Bishop.
You mentioned how one of the programs currently in vogue recognizes
checkmate as the proper way of ending the game. But isn't the main
difference between capturing the King and checkmating the King a matter
of
one extra ply of searching? When we used to play Baroque, we used chess
clocks, and capturing the King outright just made for easier play.
Finally, as for notational differences, it was my understanding that
captured pieces were set off by commas between each other, all enclosed
equally within a single pair of parentheses, e.g.,
32. Pc2-c6 (Wc7, Lb6, Id6) <--- White's turn, taking 3 pieces
Pf5-f3 (Pf3, Cg3) <--- Black's turn, taking 2 pieces
The advantage to this kind of notation is that it makes for playing the
game backwards just as easy as playing it forward, assuming you have a
diagram to refer to. However, with the Chessish 'x' symbol, do you
repeat the 'x' symbol between every piece you have captured? I don't
mind much one way or the other, as the differences are purely cosmetic,
but if you could describe the notational standard that is currently in
place, that would be great.
So, if I slap together an Ultima game using run-of-the-mill 68000
assembly
language, does anybody using Windows out there have a good 68000 emulator
for trying it out? For tournaments that are not face-to-face, but
involve
some kind of real-time processing, do you have a link that describes how
those kinds of tournaments are managed?
Feel free to send me email as my webbrowser tends to crash very
frequently.
Matthew Montchalin
[email protected]I wanna play! And is it like chess???
I;m currently working on an Atari ST implementation of the game of 'Baroque' - at least the way it was when I learned it back in 1968 (although we adopted the name 'Baroque' we declined to adopt Professor Abbot's 1968 Amendments). If you have a PC compatible running Windows (?) you might be able to boot up an ST emulator so you can play it against itself. From what rumors I have heard, you can use Windows to boot up a lot of ST emulators, and run a different emulation in each window. I guess wonders will never cease! To keep things interesting, I've got flags for the multi-leaping 'Long' Leaper (default is single-leaping), and the Suicide Rule (suicide is prohibited by default), which not everybody necessarily agrees on. Also, flags for center-counter symmetry (whether the Kings are both on the E file) and corner-counter symmetry (whether or not the Immobilizer is on A1 or H1). And then there are some people who prefer to use their first move to decide which Rook to turn upside down, so another flag for that option too. As for tournament play, I don't know exactly how to implement an Email/Webmail option, so I guess I'll have to leave that for the future. Direct dialing sounds like it is easier to implement, but who wants to eat the phone bills? In any case, 5 minutes per move appears to be fair, but how many minutes should we allow the 'operator attendant' to consume in typing out each move? One or two minutes? I think that the early radio chess matches of the 1940s and 1950s were mostly a matter of gentlemanly agreement, so that ought to serve as a guide for any similar Baroque/Ultima tournaments.
71 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.