[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GeorgeDuke
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Falcon Chess patent process started in 1992 before Chess Variant Page existed. So, it is more logical for us to disparage CVPage's coming into existence and accompanying proliferation of mediocre games' (mixed in with some excellent ones to be sure) slightly watering down significance of time-tested games patents worldwide, going back to Scrabble, Monopoly and many others. However, courtesy of all Editors Howe, Aronson, Quintanilla, Good, Fourriere the last year and a half especially has enabled us to find niches where I contribute within their 'multiform ethos' as much or more than anyone else, whilst simultaneously preserving Patent USP5690334(and other foreign) in sure status of full extended rights.
I have not read Joe Joyce's Comment yet, brief though it may be. What Falcon Chess has to do with the piece-values Comments made escapes me. I say to Derek Nalls simply that I am willing to determine piece values for games in question, one or more of Joyce's, by Game Design Analysis criteria I used 40 or 60 times years 2004-2005. Those analyses still appear in Comments under each CV being considered. Because of complexity and some need for intuition, I am sceptical of a computer algorithm's determination of piece values, especially without a large database of games played, doing as well as humans, for foreseeable future--because number CV variables are infinite. The proof Nalls' 50-page program is comparatively inadequate is that he will not likewise use it for such estimatations on command. Since his system is only good for three sets now(FRC,CRC and the one of his own), it apparently does not even achieve hit-or-miss or willynilly import.
Falcon Chess RNFB. Falcon Chess with the formation Rook, Knight, Falcon, Bishop.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Several people requested to weigh in have spoken, and we are now inclined to formalize this array as standardized later in year 2007. Notice that sequence N-b1-c3-b5-c7 is protected by the Black Bishop-d8. That obviates the annoyance within RNBF of the (more-or-less) same 'N-c3-d5-c7' creating fork on Rook and Queen, c7 being unprotected there. In this 'RNFB', unprotected Pawn b7 can be reached by Falcon c1 in two after either White b- or c-Pawn moves(so really three moves). However, Pawn b7 can of course just itself move and Falcon at b7 no prima facie threat. The third finalist 'RFNB' seems ever so slightly to marginalize Falcon in openings, and Knight(all 4) again has unprotected Pawn available to reach in three albeit not with powerful forking. Leaving out the details right now, we agree with Abdul-Rahman's assessment that Bishops align better altogether from d- and g-files, and still close call whether Falcon should be at b- or c-file; but think will request Greg Strong in ChessV to start going to c-file Falcon, RNFBQKBFNR. [Therefore, mating threat to be done away with brought on by 'RNBF' of i1-j3-i5-h7, no longer considered an effective challenge but instead possibly harmful to keeping the maximum plausible openings playable in what would be 'standard Chess']
John Conway's fairy piece Angel jumps to any square that can be reached by n King moves. Let Pawns = 1.0 point. On 8x8 with n=7, what is the value of an Angel? Anything greater than 1.0 that you want. 60.0 would probably be convenient [Then n=6 makes Angel-prime about 40.0 points], but a variate piece could be more valuable than that if stipulating it cannot be captured. What model-system(s) is trying to be emulated? Chess piece-values may be like predicting the weather, or selecting stocks to maximize profit, or handicapping horse races. However, those systems have measureable successes to compare. Or do they? Does 'weatherman' get credit if it rains in the suburbs but not city? If stocks generally go up 7% over x years, and one's value appreciates 8%, does your formulaic selection method amount to much? In handicapping thoroughbreds, a steady 5% loss is already above average because of government take-outs of 15% and more: methods-players must be well up that bell-shaped curve reliably to average net $100 per $1000 bet over the long-run. There is extensive literature in all three of those fields. In latter two, any profit or win(at all skilled gambling like Poker) is indicative of good, or useful, 'system' behind it. In Falcon Chess we now assign Pawns 1.1(it may yet change toward 1.05) in order to keep Rook 5.0; we just like that set-off better than Rook 4.6 or 4.7. The first step, after some play of a variate, is to ask deeply within many alternate positions which would be preferred, 4 Pawns or 1 Rook, and so on. [To be developed is how we know values are close to 'correct']
Piece-values: for pieces of Rook value+, first find Pawn-equivalence. 8 K___P___P___P___P___P___P___P A = Angel, leaps to any square reached 7 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P in n King moves(Conway), n=7 8x8 6 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P P = Black Pawns Why 'any value> 5 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P 1.0' & then assign 60.0? Because A 4 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P on 8x8 sets up in illegal position(!) 3 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P and so not properly rated. Arriving 2 P___P___P___P___P___P___ ___a anyway at '60 pts.': 60 Black Pawns, 1 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___k White goes first h2-f8 Checkmate. a b c d e f g h If instead Black moves first, g3-g2 Check (ignoring activation of Angel's simultaneous check by special rule that Angel must move) and after h2xg2, f3xg2, capturing Angel, Black is to win. So equivalence of 60(or 59)Pawns and one Angel(58 or 60) 8 P___P___P___P___K___P___P___P Unlike Angel, Angel-prime(n=6) is bona 7 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P fide piece on 8x8. Legal initial, 6 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P no promotion of course. 47 Pawns beat 5 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P A-p and King, but remove several 4 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P forward Pawns and A-prime soon finds 3 P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P a square six removed from King, 2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ checkmate, proving A-p 39-41 points. 1 ___ ___ ___a___k___ ___ ___
Nah. I subscribe to an opposite ethos to CVPage's multiform one. There has been one widely-recognized Western Chess at a time, and probably will continue to be, however it evolves. Variant pieces of quality go back 800 years and are less frequently invented today, not more. However, I shall continue to develop my method for the infinite-variety mentality hereabouts. To begin with Angel is precisely to get rid of one end-point in the discussion. Joe is entirely missing the point. When I developed formulaic 'M = 3.5ZT/P(1-G)', many constantly brought up extreme cases like one-piece-type Battle Chieftain as unsupporting the model for Number of Moves(M). So, with 'Angel-Prime' we start with most extreme powerful piece. [Much more to come, like it or not, actually how to calculate real-world piece-values] Nalls' Comment is not before me now, but until his system comes to be used for piece-value calculations, it is of none other than theoretical interest. Marshall and Cardinal, on a scale of interesting variant pieces from 1 to 10, rank about '2'. Jeremy has pointed out Capablanca was lazy to revive those hack pseudo-compounds, and games with them are boring. Derek Nalls should calculate some piece values for interesting Betza Half-Duck, Rococo Withdrawer or Cannon Pawns, Lavieri's Promoter, or any of 100 other interesting fairy pieces of inventiveness, but nevertheless all nonstandard oddball pieces of present topics are doomed to near-esoteric, mathethematical, or game-theoretic interest.
Besides pieces in the class that Jeremy Good mentions getting negative value(Betza has some), like Lavieri's Promoter, the Blue Queen presents a problem. A fairy piece invented mid-20th Century, Blue Queen (painted Blue) moves like mad Queen, starts in center of board and belongs to whichever side is currently moving. Just as a compound gets more than sum of its parts, suppose Blue Queen is worth more than 5 not less to each side. Gilman has more recent pieces that change sides upon crossing center line, different enought mechanism. On other note of assigning values, M Winther repeatedly identifies bifurcation pieces as 'about Rook value', but almost all his bifurcation pieces appear to be in range 5.5, 6.0, 6.5 or even higher in most piece mixes and arrays imaginable. However, like for Cannon and Falcon we need Reinhard Scharnagel's just mentioned 'percentage of free squares on the board' to evaluate bifurcation pieces. For Falcon, I passed along to Greg Strong in 2006 an algorithm including 'number of captured pieces and Pawns', measure isomorphic with Scharnagl's.
What goes around comes around. Which is more Elegant formalization below? More generalizable, or uplifting, or just clearer? And where is the attribution? Invented in 1970's, Conway's Angel leaps to any square reachable by n King moves. With n = 7, Angel covers 8x8 board; a specific square(4,6) is one at opposite corner of '4,6 rectangle' -- Charles Gilman's 'Gimel'. Thus, CVPage, ever recycling known quantities, by Gilman's 'From Ungulates Outward' transposes problem-theme Classic Angel into following (including non-pre-established names): 12 Wazir, 22 Ferz, 13 Dabbabah, 23 Knight, 33 Alfil, 13 Trebouchet, 24 Camel, 34 Zebra, 25 Giraffe, 35 Satyr, 45 Antelope, 46 Gimel, 56 Rector, 27 Flamingo, 67 Parson, 44 Tripper, 55 Commuter, 66 Quitter, 14 Cobbler, 15 Quibbler; also unnamed 16, 26, 36, 17, 37, 47, 57, 77.
To make Blue Queen playable game and more than thought experiment, just stipulate Blue-painted Queen cannot capture a Pawn unless attacked by that Pawn. Invented 1950's, Blue Queen moves like mad Queen, starts at one of the four central squares, and belongs to whichever side is currently moving. The limited Pawn prohibition and otherwise Queen-normality should make nice game akin to Lavieri's Promoter Chess, but Blue Queen presumably equally helps as hurts(hey symmetry). Interesting. Finding proliferation extremely offensive, we just file this variate here.
Falcon Chess Variants - Several. Some Different Setups with Falcon pieces, including with Capablanca pieces and Airplanes.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Okay. I think all the 8x10 ones like Two-King style are attainable Presets right now in view of constraints. Also, Jeremy, Sibahi's Energizer-style Knights-on-side are fine alternate Falcon ES Preset governed as they are by 'USP5690334' postscript. I did not notice til after I moved there, of course their all being played so often per separate agreement.
Where are J K Lewis' piece values, Joe? It helps to familiarize with Ralph Betza's 'Ideal & Practical Values I-VI'. How many years went into those 2001 articles, now a covenant? Later lists just build on Betza variables from 1990's and 1980's. However, Betza likes to compare pieces pairwise not whole CVs. In system to point-count entire game, available so far are elementary (1) Use unit Pawns 1.0, or 1.1 (2) Where practicable, Rook value & up, ignoring the other pieces, put piece X on empty board with 2 Kings and opposite-colour Pawns, and shuffle them around until finding Pawn-equivalence. These end-game positions are Joyce's reproducible 'many positions' versus '1 specific position'. Who should win to left? Trying 10, or 30, positions, we are interested in typical not __ __ __ __ __ __ __ extreme cases with few pieces/pawns. Its experts __ __ __ __K__ __ __ know who wins, but move one or two Pawns at a __ __ __ __P__ __ __ time one or two spaces, and it goes the other __ __P__P__ __P__P__ way. Pawn Equivalence, Rook = 5.0. There are __ __ __ __ __ __ __ in mad-Queen (40+40 points)/ 64 squares __ __ __ __ __ __ __ = 80/64 = 1.25. Should we always distribute __r__ __ __k__ __ __ points so that there are approximately 1.25 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ the number of squares? So CVs may be like Bridge hands: the total point-count for bidding in system of all four 13-card hands includes 40 high-card points plus short-suit counts of 5 or 10 or 12 more: 52 points/52 cards = 1.0. [Whole history of Bridge postdates Capablanca Chess]
Blue Queen becomes playable with the proviso that Blue Queen can only capture a Pawn threatening her. Blue Queen cannot actually be captured even by a Pawn threatening her. Of course, there is no capture of Blue Queen at all simply because the one Blue Queen belongs to the player currently moving. So, the 'Pawn threat' is hypothetical, based on Pawn's one-step diagonal-forward capture, with respect to the present position of Blue Queen. It prevents easy Pawn captures. Otherwise BQ moves like normal mad Queen including piece captures, checks and checkmate. Second mini-Rule is there can be no two-fold repetition. Two-fold repetition is not Draw, just dis-allowed and another move must be made instead. This prevents shuffling Blue Queen back and forth, but must also apply to moves not involving BQ, so caution for end-games. Those two requirements should move Blue Queen from thought experiment in games journal(originating 1950's) to playable game.
Besides Maharajah and Sepoys, Martin Gardner books of S.A. columns have
many Chess examples. MG features this one by Lord Dunsany, who drew
Capablanca in simultaneous exhibition 1920's. White (small letters) to
R__N__B__K__Q__B__N__R play and mate in four. This is legal position
P__P__P__P__P__P__P__P that could occur in actual play of mad-Queen,
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ 'FIDE', Chess.
__ __ __ __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ kcalB no gnieb ton neeuQ kcalB :noitanalpxE
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ kcalB os, devom evah K & Q snaem erauqs
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ morf noitisop tneserp rieth dehcaer snwaP
r__n__b__q__k__b__n__r .draob fo edis rehto
h g f e d c b a Therefore (actually Move 40, or 60),
1 N-d7
If ...N-h3, mate in two more moves.
If ...N-f3, mate in three more moves. Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I was about to say the same thing in substance, Reinhard Scharnagl, when Derek Nalls only 8 days ago insulted Falcon Chess (USP5690334), by starting with 'As a USA citizen...' in Comment this thread. Well, great, I said here inside what Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calls 'the Empire', that leaves me off the hook, since nobody cares what someone thinks whose foremost identity is 'American citizen' in times of loss of civil liberties in North America. However, pertinently also, there may be an association between lack of freedom and development of Chess and other intellectual pursuits, as Soviet Union Chess peaks most difficult political years there up to its end late 1980's. [Hey, see also the muted radicalism, in next to last poem, 27 December 2006, 'Chess Morality XIX: Shadow-Chess' -- substantially after Goethe -- and Venus' lines 35-36: 'Let's pray that ethos dies 'In Gold They Trust'/ And scatter to high heaven their Fool's dust'.]
Omega Chess. Commercial chess variant on board with 104 squares.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Omega Chess is one of the Poorest of the 600 Large Chesses in CVPage. Its short-moving Wizard and Champion would worsen an 8x8 adaptation if either were substituted for Bishops or for Knights. Bishops perfected mad-Queen Chess, and no (Camel+Ferz) or (Wazir+Dabbabah+Alfil) could have. A clever use of either Wizard or Champion might find a place on a small Chess 7x8 or 7x7. To put both of them on 10x10 (plus four corner squares) makes for long-playing Pawn-heavy-like game reminiscent of Shogi, whose variants unappealing most Western-style players. All they are imaginatively, Wizard being Camel plus Ferz, Champion being Wazir plus Dabbabah plus Alfil, are compound re-makes, each leg up to a thousand years old, although they never explain it straightforwardly that way in Omega Chess write-ups, as if making something from scratch. Yet seeing the nature of Wizard's and Champion's coming from Wazir/Ferz etc. could lead to Capablanca-Random-Chess-type extensions. For anyone with nothing better to do, actually (F,W, Dabbabah, Alfil, and Knight) are also fundamental combinations and more logical to base thousands of initial arrays on, than clumsy Marshall(R,N) and super-Knight Cardinal(B,N), if one would just avoid so many as ten ranks.
We have surveyed 300 of 700 large Chesses one by one in Comments beneath each, never got to Omega til now and rate Omega rules in bottom 20% because CVPage has many very average and 50 or more Excellent large CVs. Like Grand Chess (in bottom 20%) O. suffers from low piece density making long games broadly reminiscent of Shogi variates. Its weaker piece mix, not Pawns per se, is reminiscent of very different Shogi in 15 Omega games played in GC. Notice Cavebear compares to no other large CVs staying within comfort zone of familiar Omega and Shogi as exotics. We too hope people acquire Omega sets, if available, to play other variates since several complimented physicial pieces. 'The Champion works' on 8x8 compared to what? How about (N,F), (N,W), (Dab,F), (Alfil, W) and six or seven other commonplace and established substitutions for either Bishop or Knight instead? Does it best replace B or N? Anyone with nothing better to do, go for it, find whether this Champion(D+A+W) in particular is better than any of those, or better than Bishop, on reasonable 8x8 not oversized 104. 'Bears no resemblance' could apply pairwise to FIDE Chess and FRC, or Falcon Chess and FC with Airplanes: totally different games. Faced with proliferation we compare and contrast closely and afield, even mathematically by Game Design Analyses. Macdonald's 'Positive feedback' comes because people, seeing that mad Queen ran its course, it is finished to be given chance want any 'something different for a change', as CVPage website Intro has said for 12 years.
Omega is Grand Chess level of lower 20%, but Uwe Kreuzer, whom I played both CVPage and BrainKing, played one Omega in GC here on 10x8, an improvement; so Omega could evolve somewhat now they are seeing their Champion/Wizard just re-configures known quantities. Keeping sort of standards and needing to add 30 or more Large CV to 'Excellents', thanks Abdul-Rahman for asking and please anyone else try a list ideally if ten or more, since otherwise it amounts to advocacy or just bias, we name for fun some Large CV Excellents at own thread following, that were mostly buried in aborted Tournament vote 2006 at only (0), 1, or 2, or 3 favourable.
Abdul-Rahman's 'one best Decimal(100 squares)' temporarily put on hold, these are 28 Excellent Large CVs, 72+: Rococo, Maxima; Altair, Jacks & Witches; 3-Player Chess(patent), Big Board, Gridlock(satire), Eight-Stone, Sissa; the following historical ones, Carrera's (since its derivatives get the attention), Courier, Grande Acedrex, Gala, Jetan, Novo; Centennial, Cagliostro's, Chess on a Really Big Board, Leaping/Missing Bat, Quintessential, Hanga Roa, AltOrth Hex, Ecumenical, Achernar, 4 Armies, Giant King, Insect, Nomic(various).
Omega Chess. Commercial chess variant on board with 104 squares.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Just going to normal 8x10, as game ended 20.Sept.04 Peter Leyva-Uwe Kreuzer, would make Omega okay. That is how fine-tuned design becomes. Shako (1997) and Omega are near-duplicates, with Cannon instead of Wizard and 'Elephant-Champion' having Ferz option too. Shako deals with awkward wide Pawn spacing when implementing Centennial-described 'holy grail' 100 squares by having Grand Chess empty file behind (except Cannon). 'Too much of a good thing' detracts Excellent 84-square Quintessential in 144-square Quinquereme. Likewise, in other typical cases, Lavieri's Achernar's 81, or Eight-Stone's 72, or Carrera's 80 for that matter suffice for sizing, with more unnecessary in best interest not having so many sliders or long-range leapers. Re-rating usual other factors than game rules, now that Omega material is back, game scores, popularity, theme, clear rules. Wizard/Champion complement in respect of going to mutually exclusive squares together with Knight, so it appears illogical to criticize colourbound Wizard alone of cross-pair. Instead each overlaps unexpectedly in their own way with Bishop, Rook, and Knight. To change at all either W. or Ch. would be different CV in another direction, whereas board decrements might be permissible staying within the conception.
Seirawan Chess. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]They are doing it again. Henry Bird did it 1874, Jose Raul Capablanca did it 1923 and now Yasser Seirawan does it 2007. 'Revive' as the premier alternate chess 400-year-old D. Pietro Carrera's Chess! See how the names change. Carrera's Champion(R+N) becomes Guard 19th C., then Chancellor or Marshall 20th C., now Seirawan's Elephant 21st C. Bravo for Elephant on 8x8 now instead of everyone else's 8x10! Carrera's Centaur(B+N) becomes Equerry 19th C., Archbishop, Chancellor(not to be confused) or Cardinal 20th C., now Seirawan's Hawk 21st C. New names for new millennium. Same old comfort zone. Capablanca Random shows these can be tweaked in acceptable fashion to taste 50 or 100 or 200 times good and symmetrically. So, with a new one every fifty years or so, the low-order 50 times 50 years is, well, over 2000 years, itself more than age or time of Chess. Consistency is no hobgoblin.
Does Computer detect irony? Our previous Comment of 'Excellent' Seirawan Chess could be computer test for any exclusively left-brained entities. To perspicacious observers, everything meant its opposite! Seirawan's and Hooper's name changes for Marshall and Cardinal are actually to be condemned not appreciated. When we say 'Bravo' for RN and BN on 8x8, it is really one prolonged hiss of disapproval. When projecting recycled Carrera CVs every 50 years til kingdom come, Computer may take it literally, but an effectual 'advanced' Turing test bolts (hey, sounds like 'halts': Halting problem) at a lark, red herring or wild card. How to tell? You simply have to be elite 23-paired-chromosome-carrying (apes have 24). Gary Kasparov's Advanced Chess (teaming purported 'grandmasters' and 'chess-playing' program), no other than Yasser Seirawan has called 'atrocious idea'. True enough despite source. Abominable idea too is Seirawan's Chess' crowding Marshall and Cardinal onto 8x8, foremost because of borrowing without attribution (Perfect Chess, Tutti-Frutti etc.), displaying ignorance of place among hundreds CVs. Besides, SC plays as mediocrely as Omega Chess. Is (IRONY: EUPHUISM) as 1(GRADUALISM: TRANSLOCATION) 2(PERSIFLAGE: APOLOGUE) 3(RNA: COFACTOR) 4(CONSISTENCY: HOBGOBLIN) 5 All of the above, 6 1&3 only, 7 2&3 only, 8 1&4 only ?
Ralph Betza's FAD is strongest of these and the same as later McDonald's Omega Chess' Champion, another lack of attribution with Omega never mentioning Betza. Maybe instead Doublemove Ferz is weaker than Adrian Alvarez de la Campa's Templar, since Templar leaps to Dabbabah squares and goes to Ferz squares with or without capturing, whereas DF is two-path to Dabbabah squares and only goes to Ferz square to capture. So, the advantage to two of the three types of squares goes to Templar; and they act the same to Alfil squares as ordinary sliders. [Anyone call follow links here to Betza's 1996 Piece Value paragraphs on FAD, which Omega subsequently develops with new name as 'Champion' in 1998.]
Away from computer I realized cousin of FAD, namely FWD, is Omega Champion, Betza discusses in same 1996 articles, anyone conscientiously developing a new game late 1990s should have become aware of. Thanks for clarifying anyway. When Jeremy mentioned Templar, I had to research it and thought JG now follows Charles Gilman's sometimes leaving reader to fend for himself. Next out of the blue 'Waffle', all right, regular that I am, I still looked it up to be sure it is Wazir + Alfil. Most readers would be unaware of Templar or Waffle. Please define terms insofar as possible. This is cool stuff but always needs foundation. As for Chu Shogi pieces, one point is that a couple of large Shogis, with offensive terms including 'Demon', were forever expunged after posting from CVPage late 1990's, some of their moves never again seen here. (Betza himself points out in 1996 that millions of pieces are possible.) Betza probably was not aware of many of the weirdest Shogi pieces because we worked then within Western Chess standards and expectations, not anything goes.
Since as Ralph Betza points out in 1996 articles, millions of Chess pieces are possible, and CVPage has only, what, 8000, 10000, 15000 variant pieces, we could well expunge every one of those 15000 and still have endless discussions on the remaining 990,000 possible pieces. Fantastic. No more Wazir, Ferz, Immobilizer, Half-Duck, Flamingo, Nemel, Scorpion, none of them. Never again Promoter, Venator, Quintessence, Rhino, Dragon, or Nemeroth. If you want to reference a one-step Rook, formerly called Wazir, now dis-allowed, just find another suitable pathway for it. New pieces, reaching the old Wazir squares, are innumerable. One, the Earthquake, goes 13 forward 12 diagonally, and twelve cross-horizontally; and so on for as many pieces as you want and all the time in the world. (Betza was not original with that, as David Pritchard says in Intro to 1994 ECV that millions of coordinate pieces alone are possible)
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.