Ratings & Comments
Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Oct 30, 2018 12:34 AM UTC:Why does ChessV not support CRC? Simply because it hasn't been a priority. Nor, as far as I know, has anyone previously asked for it. But I will add it since it shouldn't be too difficult. One thing I will need to do it find a range of position numbers with a unique mapping of position numbers to actual positions. FRC has this but CRC does not and the rule that all pawns must be protected makes this difficult. I could just have a database of positions I suppose.
Please contain your emotional outbursts. While I normally enjoy fixing bugs, I'm less inclined to do so when someone makes a huge stink about one. So, for now, I'll just tell you how to work around it. Open another tab, log in to the site, then go back to the tab where your comment was seemingly lost and reload it.
H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, Oct 29, 2018 06:21 AM UTC:*** The comment-entry script again deletes your message when you are not (or no longer) logged in. This website is total crap! ***
I am not sure what exactly you are looking for. An example of source code? If so, in which programming language?
The WinBoard/XBoard GUI supports CRC, and shuffles a start position for it. (It can in fact do that for any chess variant it supports.) But it is not an engine.
If the trouble is just writting initial position code I can guide you through it. You have examples on this wesite with the chess960 preset :)!
I would like to eventually include Capablanca Random Chess in my PR_Chess engine. I am looking for some
software that determines the starting positions.
ChessV plays many Capablanca variants but technically not Capablanca Random :(!
May I ask why?
Is there a chess engine that plays Capablanca Random Chess? (SMIRF link is broken).
It has been pointed to me that the promotion rules make for the possibility of not having the needed physical material for when playing on physical boards :)!
My stance on that was always that today chess is most of the time played over the internet where physical material it is not a concern as with software you can always "cast" 10 queens :)!
Official competitions are held this way mostly for tradition and cheating protection reasons.
In 50 years physical boards will probably become fringe and understood only to the very curios as is for a modern audience medieval western European poetry, for example :)!
I never liked Christian Freeing's Grand Chess promotion rules. It just makes a good game worse. Fergus Duniho has done better in Gross Chess (the game in the I have in the meantime remember I got the idea of such complex rules) gives the extra possibility, with respect to Cristian Freeling's game, of promotion to more queens, rooks, bishops and knights probably under the pretext that such material is more easily obtainable casually and more cheaply in the market. That is a big help. I will make such rules myself but not because it makes the game better (it does not make it worse and after you read the rules you would see why this practically cannot happen) and I'm not worried about the material as my way still requires plenty of physical pieces, which will make individual boards cheaper, nor will help or hinder eventual clubs who should anyway need to have extra boards with extra pieces. But as a respect for the reach history of the art of chess boards and pieces I will insert the following restrictions:
A player can have at a time a maximum of:
4 rooks
3 queens, knights, champions, siege elephants,mamelukes, wizards and bishops
2 griffins,marshals,archbishops and aancas
and as stated in a previous comment 1 joker
I had also decided to scrape the extra initial moves of the pieces starting on the bruhaha squares.
In his initial game of Bruhaha Greg Strong has done this in order to have extra opening possibilities.
But in these games it is not that needed. Only the champions has to suffer as he cannot jump to the 3rd rank during his first move. So maybe he will be moved twice in the opening :)!
Hello again folks,
While reading Fergus's "How to enforce rules in game courier" I rethought the idea of castling (which did not exist until now) in the 2 apothecary games. Even if the game starts with connected rook,s tucking the king to more safety while plunging the rooks into action seems a good extra choice. And I figured as the board is wider I could allow more options, and giving the fact that moving the king closer to the edge is usually more desirable I decided for two sub options in the closer to the middle castles. A specific choice of castling will be available only if the king path to it's destination will be unobstructed, the rook's path to it's destination is unobstructed by anything else than the king and both the rook to be moved and the king have not been yet moved; also the king needs not to cross a checked square in it's path :)!
The king's path is given by a diagonal step back towards the rook and the horizontal steps until destination.
The six castling options are:
1. King side long castle: The king moves (for white) through g1&h1 and lands on i1. The king side rook then jumps on h1.
2. Opposite side long castle: The king moves (for white) through e1&d1 and lands on c1. The king side rook then jumps on d1.
3. King side short castle: The king moves (for white) through g1 and lands on h1. The king side rook then jumps on g1.
4. Opposite side short castle: The king moves (for white) through e1 and lands on d1. The king side rook then jumps on e1.
5. King side short spread castle: The king moves (for white) through g1 and lands on h1. The king side rook then jumps on f1.
6. Opposite side short spread castle: The king moves (for white) through e1 and lands on d1. The king side rook then jumps on f1.
Thanks everybody. I think erik, got me the solution. The "root" cause was my lack of experience with this game! Resolved.
I found the solution. Read my comment in the game.
I attempted to move a square in voidrider chess. My 1st move e2-e1; -e2
I think that is legal based on the game rules but I am getting a banned input error
Actually there was an extra error. The first line did not end in semicolon. Now it does :)!
Tricky thing, is that after I have written the semicolon in the proper place, my tests yielded a zero for the first six times. "Lucky" I was confident enough and the 7,8 and 10th test were ones. And that's fine. I just wanted to point out the statistical peculiarity :)!
@Fergus
Ok, Got it!...
Sorry for the trouble :)!
@Fergus
Ok, Got it!...
Sorry for the trouble :)!
When you need the value of a variable in an expression, you have to prepend a # to its name or precede it with the var operator. In "if coun1", "coun1" just returns the string value "coin1". Likewise, in "if coin2", "coin2" just returns the value "coin2".
I did save it the way you suggested. The way it was was obviously wrong. The problem is still in the set instruction as far as I can see :(!
Yes, this was one of my later atempts, it does not work without the paratheses :)!
Contrary to the code you posted, this is in your code:
set coin1 (rand 0 1); set coin2 (rand 0 1);
This code sets coin1 and coin2 to
Array
(
[0] => rand
[1] => 0
[2] => 1
)
, not to a random number. You need to remove the parentheses for it to work right.
Ok, here are the 2 apothecaries:
https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Apothecary+Chess+1&settings=Apothecary1working
https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Apothecary+Chess+2&settings=Apothecary2working
They are mostly the same, so there is one or the other.
Please ignore the move forcing attemps. For now just the initial position matters. A long time ago I wanted to move forward. I still do. But the initial position still has errors and that should be taken care of first.
Give me a link to what you're working on, and I'll take a look.
Unfortunately I seem to still get the behavior I got two years ago, meaning the second part (the else part) of the code always executes in the two if statements conditioned by the coin1 and coin2 variables. I had tried to use rand 1 2 instead of rand 0 1 and set (rand 0 1) meaning adding parentheses. None of these work. They were desperate attempts anyway .
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I would recommend to forget about the protected-Pawn restrictions in the numbering system. The inconvenience of not having direct mapping formulas between numbers and positions seems much worse than having some numbers that correspond to invalid positions.
Note that WinBoard already allows positions to be entered by number, and that the World probably would not become a better place by having ChessV and WinBoard use incompatible numbering systems.
The WinBoard system is a generalization of the traditional Chess960 numbering, to make that applicable to almost any variant. For each piece type you divide the total number by the number of placements for that type (for determining placement of subsequent pieces), and use the remainder as placement code for the current piece type. If the variant has normal castling rather than Fischer castling, you first place the King and Rooks (or whatever serves as castling partner) in their normal positions. If the board width is even you then place all pairs of color-bound pieces such that they are on different shade. Then you place all remaining pieces on the still open squares, ignoring square shade. In games with Fischer castling you are then left with 3 opens squares, and occupy them by the King between the castling partners.
Currently the WinBoard implementation has some limitations: numbering is not unique if a certain color-bound type occurs in more than two copies. (As this never happened in any of the supported variants, I did not bother with that case.) Also, the order in which pieces are placed depends on the piece encoding WinBoard happens to use, traversed high to low in order to make sure Q is placed before N. And it only recognizes Bishop, Ferz and Alfil as color bound, placing them in the order A, F, B. (Relevant for 'Courier960'!)
Especially the piece order seems hard to objectively define so it would cover every conceivable variant. I want to propose to derive it from a 'mother position', which for Chess960 obviously would be the FIDE array. The pieces can then be ordered according to where they stand on the baseline in this reference position, e.g. for white from left to right this would lead to the order R, N, B, Q, K. They would then be placed in top-down order: K, Q, B, N, R. But B is color bound and present in multiple copies, so it gets precedence: B, K, Q, N, R. Now in variants with castling K and R drop out (either done first or last, but always in a predetermined way), so the final order is B, Q, N, as in Chess960. For CRC it seems logical to use the Capablanca position as reference (as the name suggests that).
It should be easy to write a universal shuffling routine that takes a given position and a random number, and then shuffles that position according to the number. Unfortunately WinBoard now places the super-pieces in the order C, A, Q, which is not what the Capablanca start position would suggest when traversed from left to right.