Comments by MatsWinther

Michael, please give a concise account of 'Betza's Atomic Theory'. I've
read Scharnagl's papers on piece value, and one can immediately see in
this attempt, and others, that the result is not wholly correct. Had the
bishop's value exceeded the knight's value to this extent, then
exchanging a bishop against a knight would lead to minor advantage. But
practice has shown that bishops and knights have equal value. However, as
the player can sometimes steer the game into positions where the bishop is
stronger, it is often a good strategy to defer exchange.

If the Mammoth (Mastodon) is very strong due to its manœuvrability then a
paradox ensues. It cannot manœuvre because it's so valuable and must fall
back before the lighter pieces. This means that it's not so strong after
all. Unlike a Rook it cannot threathen at a distance. It must go forward
to make threaths, and this means that it exposes itself to threaths.
Moreover, the Mammoth is not only vulnerable at a short distance, it's
also easily exposed to threaths from long distance, by all other pieces
except the king. That is, other pieces can easily threathen the Mammoth
without being threathened themselves.

It seems like the 'vulnerability factor' is high with the Mammoth (is
'vulnerability' included when determining piece value mathematically?).
It is also a slow piece. It takes four moves to move it across a big
board. I don't believe it compares to a Cardinal (Archbishop, B+N) in
strength. The latter is faster and much less vulnerable. Intuitively, I
would say that the Mammoth compares to the value of a Rook.

Mats

Has somebody managed to get SMIRF to function under Win98SE? It runs, but
plays like a fool, and one cannot change time-setting. I've deinstalled,
removed old ini-files, an reinstalled. But it doesn't work.

Mats

Sam, for this game I investigated many initial positions, even non-mirrored.
This was the only one I found that was good, I think. Why I didn't choose
the 'natural' positions of bishops and knights had to do with the fact
(if I recollect correctly) that the enemy mastodon would lose its natural
development square on b3, b6, i3, i6. Also, the flank pawn would also be
initially threathened by the bishop, which would be a hindrance to
castling. It's possible that my 10x10 version of MastodonChess is better, at 
least more strategical. Thank you for the information on TamerSpiel. 

--Mats

Moreover, in Juell's Zillion's implementation I found the following
errors in the setup:
Setup B: black's pawn chain is 1 rank misplaced.
Setup G: black's king should be on b16, not c16.
--Mats

Where is Casaux Chess? I can't find it when searching.
--Mats

Dear JL, are you certain of these rules? Bodlaender says about Oblong 
chess (above link): 
'Moving is not obligatory. In this variant, a win is achieved by taking the 
opponents king.' 
If win is achieved by king capture, then it must be allowable to move within 
check, and to let the king remain within check.  In chess variants with die, the
king capture rule is natural. Checkmate and check rules don't work properly.
As to the promotion rules. I am not convinced that all Shatranj variants only 
promoted to fers. In four-handed Shatranj pawns promoted to Queens. In the 
still older 4-handed Chaturanga, pawns promoted to any piece, but 
depending on which square they promoted on. The ferz promotion rule is not 
universal. The reason why I believe that promotion was to any piece is 
because, in this dice game, it would be too hard to win otherwise. As to the 
bare king rule, I did not enforce this because it's so unlikely to happen. With 
promotion to rook, the king will be captured long before he is bare. But all 
rules don't need to be enforced. The player can decide himself that it's a win 
when the king is bare.
--Mats

There is no such 16 move rule. There is a 50 move rule, however, which says
that a pawn must be moved within 50 moves, otherwise the game is declared a
draw.
--Mats