Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Ok, that's fixed.

Thank you very much!

Kevin:

I configured the Muller's applet to play your variant. Hope you like it and find it interesting to face its AI. For me it is a great resource to enjoy doing something that I like.

I share the next game I played vs it driving me the white side.

1.Ng4 Jb7 2.Nd4 Ji7 3.h4 Nd7 4.Jh3 Ng7 5.c4 Mc9 6.Jc3 Mh9 7.Mc2 Jc5 8.Mh2 Jg6 9.b4 Jd6 10.f4 a6 11.a5 Nf6 12.e5 Nxg4+ 13.Jxg4 Jde7 14.Be4 Jgf7 15.M°h3 Md7 16.Nf5 Nxf5 17.Jxf5 Cc9 18.Jxe7 Mxe7 19.Jd5 Mb7 20.Bc3 Mg7 21.Kf1 Ch9 22.Jc5 Mc7 23.d5 h6 24.e6 Je7 25.Bxg7 fxg7 26.Jb6 Af8 27.Jxc7 bxc7 28.Qf3 Rb7 29.M°c3 Bh8 30.M°e5 Ca7 31.M°d4 Cb8 32.Cc3 i6 33.M°e5 Sg9 34.Cd4 Ri7 35.Mg4 d6 36.exd7 cxd7 37.f5 d6 38.M°e6 Jd8 39.Mg6 Ah7 40.g5 Cf8 41.Rf2 hxg5 42.Mxg5 Ah6 43.i5 Aj7 44.Ce2 g6 45.f6 Ch7 46.M°e7 Cxg5 47.Axg5 Rxe7 48.fxe7+ Jf7 49.Axi6 Axi6 50.Qxi6 Bxb2 51.Mxb2 Qg7 52.Sg1 Ae9 53.Bxg6 Jf6 54.Rxf6+ Qxf6 55.Sf2 Ag7 56.Cd4 Axi6 57.Sxf6+ Sf8 58.Sxf8+ Kg10 59.Axi6 Sc9 60.Ai10#

King, Queen, Rook, Bishop, Knight and Pawn are labeled as usual. The remain thus:
Amazon: A
Marshall: M
Cardinal: C
Sailor: S
Missionary: M°
Judge: J

I renamed the Archbishop as Cardinal so I could use the A to label the Amazon.

Thank you Carlos! I will try to play it sooner or later!

OK, you are welcome.

I played it a complete game, though I didn't save it. It may have been on a very low number of ply look-ahead (i.e. the default level). I don't know if it's a bug, but when it let me checkmate it in one move, the losing king took the mating piece attacking it one square away, and it continued the game after I took its king (at which point I abandoned the game). Presumably playing it using several ply look-ahead higher would give me a much tougher time.

This is definitely not as it is supposed to behave. The chekmate detection does seem to work, though, as can be tested by first playing the (illegal) moves 1.Nb4 Ka7, then switching on the AI and playing 2.Qa6. It then says "I resign" without playing a move. After it lost its King, and it is its turn to move, it should say "It seems I have already lost".

No idea why that wouldn't have worked in the game you played. That it doesn't see mate-in-1 coming is normal; the default lookeahead depth is only 2 ply + quiescence search, and for mated-in-1 the King is only captured on ply 4. (So 3 ply + QS would be enough to see it.)

In any case the play will be quite weak; it is intended to be a demo for people who just have seen the rules for the first time, to get an idea what the game is like. Setting it to 4 ply would make it slightly tougher, but even then a strong player should not have much dificulty beating it. (An for large games like SAC Chess it might think too long.)

Note that the castling move that is now defined for the King (isO2) describes castling with the furthest piece in that direction. Which in this case is the Judge. If you would want it to castle with the Rook you would have to specify isjO2 . (I used the j for this, which normally means 'jumping', because in a sense you jump over the Judge while looking for the castling partner.)

For user input the diagram is not very pedantic, and allows you to castle with the Rook anyway, but it allows every other illegal move as well, so that doesn't mean a whole lot. As it is the AI would never castle with the Rook, however.

That's odd. Just now I entered the moves 1.Nb4 (square lit up as usual) Ka7 (illegal) 2.Qa6 (illegal) and then clicked on 'Play It!', and next I clicked on 'Move'. At that point the Black king took my queen on a6.

That is odd indeed. What web browser are you using? I tried it with FireFox and Chrome, and in both cases it said "I resign" without moving.

One other test we can do: when you open the piece table by clicking on "here" under the diagram, and then click on the "move" header of the move column, it should switch to displaying the piece values it estimated. (Don't take those too seriously! They are often very inaccurate, but good enough for playing against someone who desn't know the piece values either.) Behind the King it should also print "(c00)", though, to indicate that it is royal. One of the explanations for what you see is that it somehow did not get through that the King is royal.

@ H.G.: I'm using a MS Explorer browser (from my Windows7 laptop).

When I did what you suggested as another test, the value displayed for the king was '311 (c00)', so it would seem that it's considered royal, according to what you wrote.

[edit: Note that when I did the test a second time, the pieces were given slightly different values for some reason. For the king, '316 (c00)' was given, for example.]

I am also running Windows 7 (on a desktop). I tried it with MS Internet Explorer (update version 11.0.170), but I still get the 'I resign' message. This makes it a complete mystery.

Does anyone else have this problem with the Diagram?

That the piece values differ slightly from run to run is normal; the diagram determines those by sampling a number of randomly generated positions.

Now when I try entering 1.Nb4 Ka7 (illegal) 2.Qa6 (illegal) and then click on 'Play it!' followed by clicking on 'Move', nothing happens at all, not even an 'I resign' message. I tried this 3 times tonight and it happened 3 times that way.

I suppose when I originally saw the Black king take my Queen the first day I tried this test, something may have been different.

On the other hand, I have been told I have schizophrenia, since once in a while I see things incorrectly (such as words) now and then (for example) - though I've never seen a chess or CV position incorrectly, when I've been awake, as far as I know.

I'm not sure how to check which exact version of MS Windows Explorer I have as my browser, if that would help instead.

I wrote something and discovered I wasn't logged in at the time I finished the post. Hopefully it can be recovered by an editor.

If nothing happens at all, the script might have stopped because encountered an error, and in that case it would be possible to get information about it. Just hit the F12 key after you pressed 'Move' and nothing happened, and an area will open at the bottom of your browser window, with a number of tabs in it. Select the tab 'Console' if that is not already selected. Error messages should appear in there. You can close the area again by another F12.

@ H.G.: Today I tried the sequence 1.Nb4 Ka7 (illegal) 2.Qa6 (illegal) followed by clicking on 'Play it!' and then 'Move'. This time I noticed it printed out 'I resign' (highlighted in red), a bit ABOVE Carlos' diagram.

I suppose it's possible I missed 'I resign' on most of my earlier test tries simply because I was looking for the words 'I resign' below the diagram instead, i.e. where the moves 1.Nb4 Ka7 2.Qa6 were printed out. Otherwise, I'm still not sure why Black's king took my queen consistently on the first day I tried the test. Anyway, I can live with it even if there is a bug somewhere, rather than my hallucinating. Thanks for the help!

Still something strange happened, because it would never play a move when it says resign. That it doesn't print 'I resign' is indeed no big deal, but if that doesn't work, there is no telling what else might not work, so it had me worried a bit. Great that it works now, let's hope it stays that way, for everyone.

I just did the test and the result is that the Applet says ***I resign!*** highlighted in red, so I don't think you have to worry, HG, because there could be a bug.

On the other hand, I already changed the definition of the King from KisO2 to KisjO2.

I use Chrome on Windows 10.

I would very much like, Kevin, if you would share a game of yours vs the Applet!

I tried to play the applet set at 4 or 3 ply, but it seemed too slow right at move one (I also was asked to stop a Script each time, early on, but that did not help). So, I played it at 2 ply (the default). I don't know how to post the moves I played with the diagram so as to be able to replay it (if that's possible), but here's the moves that I cut and pasted after the game (I had the White side - unfortunately the machine played somewhat blindly - maybe giving some small hope that huge CV Sac Chess can resist even some other engines for a while, vs. truly strong humans):

1. f5 Ji7 2. e5 Jj9 3. Ng4 b7 4. Bd5 Mb8 5. Bxg8 Kxg8 6. Nf6 Kf9 7. Qi6 h7 8. Nxh7 Jh8 9. Nxi9 Jh7 10. Nxg10 Jxi6 11. Nxe9 Kxe9 12. O-O Ch8 13. Bf4 Jj6 14. d5 Ji6 15. Nd4 a6 16. Rbe2 Jg7 17. Rgf2 c6 18. e6 d6 19. Bxd6 Md8 20. Bc7 cxd5 21. Bxd8 Kxd8 22. e7 fxe7 23. Ne6 Kd7 24. Axd5 Kc8 25. Rf4 Jh6 26. Adc5 Kb8 27. Aa7#

@Carlos:

I posted a game of mine vs. the Sac Chess applet in my previous reply, in case you missed it (it had my name given as 'panther').

Thanks, Kevin, I already read the game. It shows very well the dangers that exist since the opening. Playing carelessly Black enters after just 4 moves into a near-deadly whirlwind. Your style of play is clearly very aggressive trying to do as much damage as possible in the minimum amount of time.

I share 2 games that I played vs the applet imitating its style of play. The first testifies that the AI does make castlings. The second took a long time because I intentionally sought to reach a final of kings and pawns to test pawn's promotion on both sides.

1.Ng4 Jb7 2.Nd4 Ji7 3.c4 Nd7 4.Jc3 Ng7 5.h4 Mc9 6.Jh3 Mh9 7.e4 Jg6 8.f4 Jd6 9.i4 Nf6 10.b4 Md7 11.Mb3 Cc9 12.Mi3 c7 13.Bf3 Ne6 14.Be3 Jde7 15.Nxe6 Jxe6 16.Nxf6 Jexf6 17.d4 Mhg7 18.g4 h6 19.Cd3 Bh8 20.Cg3 O-O 21.O-O Ac8 22.f5 Jgf7 23.e5 J6e7 24.Ac2 Af9 25.f6 Jexf6 26.exf6 Mxf6 27.Cgf5 Mfe6 28.Cxi8+ Ki9 29.Cxg7 Bxg7 30.Mj5 Ch8 31.Jj4 Ad6+ 32.M°g3 Ade7 33.Jd5 Ad7 34.Jxe6 Jxe6 35.Cg6 Bxd4 36.Cxh8+ Bxh8 37.Ji6 Bxb2 38.Jxj8+ Kh8 39.Ai8#

1.Jb4 Jb7 2.Ji4 Ji7 3.Jh4 Ng7 4.Ni4 f6 5.Jc4 Mh9 6.Nb4 Af8 7.f5 Jd6 8.Jxd6 Axd6 9.Af3 Nd7 10.Ad5 Mc9 11.Axd6 Bxd6 12.e4 Jh7 13.Bf4 Cg9 14.Bxd6 Cxd6 15.Ch2 Mf8 16.Cd2 Ne5 17.d4 Nf7 18.Cf4 Mcd7 19.Cxd6 Mxd6 20.Mc2 Cc9 21.Me3 Cd7 22.g4 Ne5 23.Ac2 Cb6 24.dxe5 Cxe3+ 25.Qxe3 Mdf7 26.e6 Me7 27.e5 fxe5 28.Cxe5 Mexe6 29.Bf3 Me7 30.O-O Jf6 31.M°g3 Jxe5 32.M°xe5 Mff7 33.Nc6 Md7 34.Jg6 Mg9 35.Jf6 Mf8 36.Qxj8 b7 37.Nd4 d6 38.M°g3 Mxf6 39.Qg5 Mgf7 40.Qf4 Sg9 41.Ng5 M7d7 42.a5 Qxa5 43.Ra2 Qc5 44.Rxa8 Af8 45.M°b5 Ne6 46.fxe6 Mxf4 47.M°xc5 Mxc5 48.M°xf4 Axf4+ 49.Ki2 Mxg5 50.Ad2 Sf8 51.Axf4 Sxf4 52.Mh2 M°d8 53.Sd2 Rg9 54.Sf2 Sf6 55.b5 M°ee9 56.Be2 g6 57.Sxf6+ M°xf6 58.Rf2 M°eg7 59.b6 Sc9 60.Nb5 Mxe6 61.Nc7 Me4 62.Sc1 Mg3+ 63.Kj2 Rb8 64.Rxb8 Sxb8 65.Nxd9 Sc9 66.Nc7 Se9 67.Bb5 Sf8 68.c4 Md3 69.Sf1 M°ff7 70.Rf3 Me5 71.Sd1 M°ff6 72.Sxd6 M°xi3+ 73.Kxi3 Mxf3 74.Sd9+ Kf10 75.Sd10+ Kf9 76.Mxf3 Sxf3 77.Bxe8+ Kf8 78.Sf10+ Rf9 79.Sxf9+ Ke7 80.Sxf3 i6 81.Sf7+ M°xf7 82.Bxf7 Kxf7 83.g5 i5 84.Ki4 Kg7 85.Kxi5 Kh7 86.j5 Ki7 87.h4 Kh7 88.j6 Ki8 89.Kh6 h7 90.Ne8 Kh8 91.j7 Kg8 92.Ki7 Kf7 93.Nc7 Kg7 94.j8 Kg8 95.Ki8 Kg7 96.j9 Kf7 97.j10=A Kg8 98.c5 h6 99.gxh6 Kf7 100.h7 Kf8 101.h8 Kg8 102.h9 Kf8 103.h10=A+ Kf7 104.Af8+ Kxf8 105.Ag7+ Kxg7 106.Ki7 Kg8 107.Kh6 Kf7 108.Nb5 Kf6 109.Nd6 c6 110.Nxb7 Kf7 111.Nd8+ Kf6 112.b7 Ke7 113.Nxc6+ Kf6 114.b8 Kf7 115.b9 Ke6 116.b10=A Kf7 117.Nd8+ Kf6 118.c6 Kf5 119.c7 Kf6 120.c8 Kf5 121.c9 g5 122.c10=A gxh4 123.Acd9 h3 124.Adc10 h2 125.Acd9 h1=A+ 126.Ah5+ Axh5+ 127.Kxh5 Kf4 128.Ab4+ Kf5 129.Ad4#

Thanks for your description of my style, Carlos. I've tried to play in many styles (notably for chess) over the years, but I still find that at lower levels of skill than elite, aggression (if available in the position) often pays off most heavily.

There is a question I've had for some time now. 10x10 checkers (at least one variant of it) has been called 'International Checkers'. When naming Sac Chess, though it uses all the classic compound pieces, I avoided calling it 'International Chess' because Sac Chess was totally unproven as yet (besides that it would have been immodest). I did mention on my Chess Federation of Canada Discussion Board blog though that were Sac Chess ever to take off, I wouldn't mind if it were re-named to that instead.

Anyway, my question would be, has anyone more knowledgeable ever given thought to what characteristics a 10x10 CV should have, were it ever to be thought worthy of being called 'International Chess' (a name I find a bit ambiguous, incidentally, much like 'International Checkers').

I thought that 'International Chess' is already used as a synonym for orthodox Chess, to contrast it to variants with a clear regional binding, such as Xiangqi, Shogi, Makruk. (Which are also known as Chinese / Japanese / Thai Chess.) No one outside the tiny community of CV players would ever say 'orthodox Chess'.

And I never heard anyone speak about 'International Checkers'; everyone seems to call that 'International Draughts'. In Dutch we just call that game 'Dammen', no doubt a distorted form of the French name 'Jeu de Dames', and what you know as Checkers we call 'Amerikaans/Engels Dammen'.

The logical requirement for being called 'International' is that it should be significantly popular in a large fraction of all countries, without one country or continent having a much larger fraction of its population play it than any other. If 80% of the people playing it would be distributed (approximately proportionally) over European countries, it would be 'European' rather than 'International'. That doesn't really seem to depend on how large the board is.

So to be called 'International' it would have to be the one item of its kind that has the largest global spread. I suppose you could quantify the concept of global spread by defining it as the fraction of the population that plays it in the country that is half-way down the list that orders countries by this fraction.

Of course 'kind' is only loosely defined, but it refers to what the 'International' predicate is applied to. In 'International Chess' that would be any game that qualifies as Chess. If you want to restrict it to 10x10 variants, you would have to call it 'International 10x10 Chess'.

Interesting. The wiki on International Draughts mentions early on that it is synonymous with 'Polish Draughts' or 'International Checkers':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_draughts

I'd agree that to be called International Chess, such a variant really should be already popular internationally. Yet, I would have it as 10x10 (like for its checkers namesake), so it couldn't be orthodox (8x8) chess.

Otherwise, like for International Checkers, I'd think that besides being 10x10 there should be no pieces added/dropped to the board once the game begins. So, perhaps the first such 10x10 variant that becomes popular enough internationally should grab the title by being re-named 'International Chess' (at least until it begins to have some sort of steep decline, like chess itself might one day).

At the moment the only contender for the moniker (10x10) 'International Chess' I'm aware of might be (10x10) Grand Chess, if only since it has been promoted a lot - but it is not yet near enough popular in most nations. Finally I'd note that I've seen somewhere on this CVP website (on a rules page for a 10x10 CV that uses rotating spearmen) the claim that 'many scholars' agree that if 8x8 chess is to be further developed, it will be by a 10x10 CV:

https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/contest/cenchess.html