Ratings & Comments

Ah, I forgot this detail. They don't all have the same castling rules :(!

Actually, this does not quite work.  Waffle Chess has a unusual castling rule (which is why it was not included.)  I had planned to add support for "Fast Castling" but it didn't make it into this release.  Probably it will be in the next one.

@Kevin Pacey

I have noticed the new version (maybe from before) Hannibal Chess & Frog Chess are present but not Waffle Chess.

I have created a script, which is quite easy. If you are curious to adding it into your copy of chessV2.2 there you go:

 

Game 'Waffle Chess' : 'Generic 10x8'
{
Invented = "2017";
InventedBy = "Kevin Pacey";
Symmetry = MirrorSymmetry;

SetGameVariables
{
Array = "rnbwqkwbnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBWQKWBNR";
Castling = "Standard";
PawnDoubleMove = true;
EnPassant = true;
PromotionTypes = "QRBNW";
}

AddPieceTypes
{
AddChessPieceTypes();
AddPieceType( Phoenix, "Waffle", "W", 285, 285 );
}
}

 

 

Well I actually don't know the invention year :)!

Hi James.  Thanks for the post.  If you had the issue, it is likely other will as well.  It is good to know an uninstall is required.  I will edit my annoncement post to add this note.  I wonder if I can modify the installer to do this automatically ...

Greg: I've installed ChessV 2.2 on my Windows 10 computer. When I execute it through either the executable or through the generated icons It seems to start, but never comes up. Has anyone else had this problem. I have not tried compiling the sources yet. Is that a logical next step. NOTE: I uninstalled the older version and re-installed V2.2 and now it works fine. Sorry for the comment.

BUG ALERT: Do not set the transposition table size to anything larger than 1 GB.  If you chose a size larger than 1 GB, you will only get 16 MB (no matter how much RAM you actually have.)  This will be fixed in a future release.

I'm not sure, I don't really use WinBoard.  You specify the engines with /fcp and /scp switches (first chess program and second chess program.)  If you don't specify them on the command line, I believe it will ask you.  You don't neeed to make two copies of ChessV - you can point both to the same executable.  Then, somewhere in the user interface, are options to set engine parameters.

@Greg

I'm quite sure I did not made myself clear earlier, so the question was: How would setting up winboard play by 2 ChessV engines, one with small variation anoter with medium work :)? Thaks!...

It's nice to hear different opinions. Perhaps I am somewhat biased due to the demolition work my Gryphon has done in the tournament game.

I also do not subscribe to formula.  I've been here long enough to watch at least a half-dozen well-thought-out systems be disproven.  The killer is that, not only has it not worked for pieces (e.g., the Archbishop is significantly stronger than anticipated), but also because it depends on the entire army (e.g., the individual pieces of the Nutty Knights aren't that strong, but together, they are totally overpowering.)

Regarding Griffon vs. Queen.  I am firmly in the camp that the Queen is better.  The case has been made that the larger board favors the Griffon - which is true to a point - but the difference is microscopic.  The Griffon suffers more in the corner or the edge, especially if blocked at the key points.  The larger the board, the fewer squares are edges/corners.  But the difference is small and the Queen and Griffon are active, attacking pieces that aren't likely to be there anyway.  Far more important is the fact that, while the Griffon has 8 rays, they emerge from 4 choke points where they can be blocked.  This limits mobility measurably.  Additionally, the Queen can slide along all 8 rays while continuing to attack the ray.  The Griffon cannot do this at all.  If it attacks even files, and makes a file-move, it now attacks odd files.  Same with ranks.  The result is that the Queen can triangulate - if it wants to attack a square, and is threatened and forced to move, it has several options of other squares to relocate to while still attacking the desired square.  The Griffon has a much harder time with this - for squares outside short range there is no option at all.  Also, it has problems with asymmetry.  One Griffon can attack another and the other may not be able to attack back because they follow different paths.  These sorts of anomolies do weaken peaces to some extent.  FInally, a Queen cannot be attacked by a King because it attacks all adjacent squares.  The Griffon can be approached.

All that said, the Griffon has some neat capabilities.  In particular, in the endgame, the ability to attack two files (or ranks) and trap the king between them is pretty good.  A Griffon plus a Rook is deadly.  Get the King betwen the Griffon's forks and then move the rook in between and that is checkmate, even if the King is in the middle of the board!  (When is the King ever checkmated in the middle of the board?)  So maybe, just maybe, a Griffon can be better in the very endgame, but I'm not even sure that is clear.  (King + Queen vs. King is much easier to carry out than King + Griffon vs. King, which is kinda tricky although still possible.)

I don't know the difference in value - a pawn sounds like a good starting point - but there is no doubt I will trade a Griffon for a Queen in even trade.

By coincidence or not, H.G., that's about 87% of a queen (on 8x8, at least) which is in line with the 85% ratio offered by the old ZoG article (for 8x8), as well as the 88% (if I read right) offered up by the Betza article. I didn't check everything he's ever written so as to see if Betza thought the ratio applied on all board sizes, though. Last night my own quick sketchy re-calculations came up with a 90% ratio for on 12x12 (at least), not too different, but I would be less confident if not comparing it to ZoG and Betza's percentage figures.

One thing calculations based on theory do have the advantage of is offering up something quick, if computer analysis has yet to be done due to awkwardness of board size, for example. Players can always take calculated (or even computer-generated) piece values with a grain of salt, and/or treat them as ballpark figures, everyone should understand that, at least for CVs that aren't much explored. There is also the question of exact board size/shape being tested, exact armies used in a starting setup being tested (and the exact squares the pieces start on, as Chess960 might even show). Not only that, but the strength of an engine being used for testing, IMHO.

Dax00 didn't so far offer up a way to numerically estimate the value of a piece like the Gryphon (on 8x8, or 12x12), but rather something that looked like opinion to me. That's fine, if a number can then be offered up as at least a guestimate based on it (unless one prefers to keep it secret). Aurelian has done a kind of calculation already, based on some sort of premise(s), so it seems for 12x12 he agrees with the conclusion that it's better than a queen for that board size - what his exact number for it could be, I don't know.

P.S.: Even the best human chess players still cannot agree on even the exact values chess pieces should have, computers be damned. The current world chess champion values a bishop slightly more than a knight on average, as is tradition for a long time. I may be an exception, in that I think a knight is almost fully equal to a B - and in my days as a young man I reached 2400 USCF chess rating, and nearly 2300 FIDE (later 2400 Canadian rating, in my early 50s). Some would say I'm still pretty weak, since I blunder badly now and then. :)

@Dax00: I agree completely that calculatory methods for piece values are usually no good. They qualfy as 'fact-free science'. The known values of the six orthodox pieces can be reproduced by infinitely many numerological recipes, which can be designed to give arbitrary values for any fairy piece.

I therefore do always determine piece values in an empirical way, by having a computer program play games in which the pieces are pitted against a combination of pieces of known value, and measure their performance. Through such measurements the Gryphon turned out to be worth about 8.3 on 8x8 (IIRC), on a scale where Q=9.5.

 

@Greg

Where do I download winboard?

I have already downloaded the new version. Thanks again for your excellent work. I think the released date mentioned on your website has the wrong year.

Watch ChessV acting in all its glory!

That's right, that should work.  And the Variation of Play parameter can be set through the Winboard interface.

It would be interesting to compare the small and medium variations of play. Greg has told me that it is not possible internally. But I think winboard can accept two *.exe files. It would not care that it is the same engine with diffret parameters. Is that corect?

It seems upon re-checking, I made an error in my calculations for the Eagle's value, then reinforced that by reading Betza's article the wrong way. For now I'll go back and use a value based on the old ZoG article's exact ratio that's found between a gryphon (Eagle, here) and a queen, if only for the sake of providing a quick and dirty numerical estimate, even though it may prove to be too low later on (with much experience). The value of bent riders is something I hadn't tried to calculate on my own before.

P.S.: If I am now reading the Betza article right, he values a gryphon (i.e. Eagle) as worth 88% of a queen, which is almost exactly the value that the old ZoG article implies it has.

Where the Queen provides distributed pressure, the Gryphon provides concentrated pressure. Against reasonable play, where you expect your opponent to try to make his pieces work together (reasonable to assume pieces are relatively close together), I assert that the Gryphon is a better piece for pressuring the opponent overall. Even when kicked away, it can often still maintain distant defense. And the forking potential is massive.

I was never one to subscribe to a calculatory method of evaluating piece values, rather in favor of practical analysis through actual play. 

Even if I were to concede that a Gryphon is about a pawn less in worth than a Queen on an 8×8 board (which I do not), it makes sense that the Gryphon's initial diagonal move would mitigate its strength more so on the smaller board than on the 12×12 board of Metamachy, so for this game its value should be at least comparable if not superior.

Before finalizing my own tentative estimate for the value of the Eagle (quite a bit less than a queen), I read Ralph Betza's article on Bent Riders, in the Piece Articles section of this website. If I understood his writings right, I'd already arrived at a similar value to what his would be for the Gryphon (what is called the Eagle in this game), even though I used a sketchier form of calculation. However, Betza worked out his theories for piece values before people began to try to estimate fairy piece values with the aid of computers.

P.S.: In the Piece Articles section, too, the Article 'Who is Who on Eight by Eight' puts ZoG's value for a Gryphon only about a chess pawn's worth less than a queen, so quite a difference in value, although those are old ZoG values that need to be taken with a grain of salt in many cases.

Pretty sure I prefer the Eagle over a Queen. So much versatility.