Comments by vickalan

I'm not sure what is going on at the game. The pgn doesn't seem to match the board position. I (the engine) tried to play 3.Nf6 but I'm not sure if it accepted it or not. It doesn't show that on the diagram.

I believe this is the gams so far:
1.e4...c5
2.Qh5...e6
3.(refuse)...Nf6

Ok, I believe I played a move. This should be an interesting experiment. For the record, I'm playing the "computer" where the computer believes it is playing normal chess.

For clarity, the way I'm using an engine is that it plays the best move. If that gets rejected, then it plays the next best move. It also accepts or rejects moves using this same logic.

(If nothing else, this has gotten HGM to play a game, who I believe doesn't frequently play games on public forums. Hooray!)

I've gotton busy with other stuff so I plan to usually only play one move per day.:)

That's fine. Just leave a message once you have your username, and I'll setup a new game with the moves we've made so far. I believe the game so far is:

White      Black
Aurelian   VReinhart
1.d4    ...Nf6
2.e4    ...Nxe4
3.Reject...d6

Since we don't have a working board diagram yet you don't need to make your next move yet. Once I setup the game with your and my usernames, I'll setup the game from here and we can keep playing.

Just for the record, my moves are chosen by the computer but the computer thinks it is playing chess, but we are really playing Refuse Chess.

Ok, I set up "VReinhart" as my username, and setup a game "VReinhart - VReinhart" since I plan to only use this to display a chess diagram. Now two more questions:

What is the data next to "white/black" (i.e. "+23.46/-79.96"). Is there an engine evaluating moves?

Any idea for the best way for Aurelian to communicate moves? Maybe just on this forum, while I update the diagram there?

HGMuller,
I can move the pieces and set-up the board to the current position, but I don't know what to do to save it.

I already have a username and password. The opening window shows a conversation between you and "jon".

So my two questions:
1) how do a save a position?
2) how do I clear the conversation, so it's a fresh board for Aurelian and me?

This may work, but having trouble with some basic things.

When I go to the game, it says "Drawn Game" and I do not have any options to do anything. (I haven't played a move, or accepted the draw, or anything).

Is there a way to take back my move (since you rejected it)?

All we need is a system to show a board diagram, and I'm wondering if there is an easier way to play this.

Game has started well so far, but no move has been refused yet. I'm sure it will happen soon. I didn't think about it, but I'm not even sure if the game courier allows take-backs. If there is no way to refuse and take back moves we'll have to find another way to do it. We'll see how it goes.:)
 

Ok awesome, to my knowledge, Aurelian is the first person in the universe willing to play Refusal chess against an engine - a historical landmark! I think we only need to play one game for this experiment. If Aurelian plays White and wins, then he has outsmarted the computer.

I've never played a game on the game courier here before, so I hope I did everything right. I set up an invitation here:

(I hope to play one move per day, but might miss a few days. I do have some travel planned this month that might slow things down for short periods.)

I agree that playing your own moves against an engine removes the "competitive" spirit. From my side, I would need to run an engine a few times at each move to learn its 1st and 2nd best moves - but still is not a lot of work on my part.

The idea was an experiment. It would be to test the theory that an engine would play "disastrously poorly". I've seen this discussion of human play vs engine for Refusal chess more than once, and (so far) I have not seen a human willing to go against the engine.

(btw: thanks for your offer - If I played a game against you it would be Enep. That sounds like a fun one too!)

Aurelian Florea, I also noticed you offered to play a game. If you'd like, we can do an experiment.

It's not human vs. human. It will be you (human) vs. computer (me).

I will always choose the best move by computer. If you refuse, then I'll play the 2nd best move (also by computer).

Let me know if you'd like to try that. I haven't played any game here on the courier(?) system, but I'm sure it's not too hard.:)

HGMuller, how far into a game will that be evident? I didn't detect anything like that happening in the first 8 moves of a simulation that I tried.

(In the example you provided, you say "...attack that knight with your queen. The engine will ignore it." This may be optimal play for the side with the engine)

I certainly believe an engine (as described previously) will falter at some point, but wondering how far into a game is it expected?

For me nothing was evident in the early stages. I could not find a way to out-smart the engine in the opening phase of the game.

Does anyone know how well a chess engine will play this game against a human?

It's not convenient, but this game can be played against an engine by setting the engine to its strongest level, then letting it play a move. If you refuse the move, then you make the engine go back, and play a different move (temporarily setting to a lower level, until you find the engine's "2nd" best move).

The computer will reject your moves by checking if they are "best" or not.

To me it seems that in a chess opening to the mid-game, there are enough move options that the computer's "2nd best" moves will always be very good - better than most human players. Therefore the board position will start to favor the computer.

In an end-game, the engine may falter - because it will not play well knowing that the best move will likely be refused. But to get to the end-game, the computer may already have achieved a formidable advantage, and the human player will already be in a hopeless position.

I tried this once, and couldn't find a flaw with this type of strategy (from the computer's point of view). But I only got to about 8 moves, and then stopped the experiement. The computer was in a winning position, but this was winning as judged by normal chess - not refusal chess. So I could not say for sure the result was conclusive.

I'd like to try again, but am already busy in other games. Can anyone predict (or know) the result if taken to its conclusion?

I have a few questions about this page.

First, does CVP have any connection with Zillions of Games? (other than both are about variant chess).

If there is no connection between the two websites, then what is the purpose of this page?

Is there an interest for CVP to promote Zillions of Games, could it be done more in a general way (like an ad on the home page) rather than at one specific game?

Also, some of the content on this page appears to be obsolete. Visitors such as me may end up wasting their time opening links that don't exist, or link to non-remarkable information.

Should this page be deleted altogether? (especially in light of the fact that Greg did superb work to make a better page for Roman chess).

Also, what does "It is categorized as Orthodox chess" mean? (mentioned on this page).

Thanks for any explanation or insight into the purpose of this page.

It does say that when looking at the board, but it goes away when looking at the move definition of pieces.

While on this topic, I wonder if there is a way to always uniquely specify a piece with a move diagram without requiring it to be interactive. Unless a piece is very complicated, I would think there is a way to do it, but haven't thought it through yet. If there is such a way, it would be my preference (why animate a specification if a static diagram would work)?

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

Oh, that helps. I didn't know that the interactive diagram is itself interactive (I thought it's interactive only because it appears when selecting on the piece name). There does still seem to be a minor discrepency in my view. The rules say "The new leapers/jumpers are capable of an optional multi-capture". I take this to include the speedy knight, and strictly speaking the knight is new too because it's not the same knight as in classical chess. But the diagram does not show capture symbols in the intermediate squares.

Again, these are minor points that should be cleared up before starting a game. As a whole - this is a very well-written game description and one of my favorite variants (although I have not played it yet).

Another comment, and again this is a stylistic idea, and not very important (but I'll mention anyway):

Would the page look better if "(revised)" was pulled out of the title, and instead (optionally) a very short "change history" added at the bottom?

A few questions/comments:

About the optional multi-capture: Rules say it is for new leapers/jumpers, so this includes knight, speedy knight, cat, star-cat, and eques rex, corrrect?

(I'm assuming the knight is regarded as new because of it's different allowed initial move, and promotion rule compared to classical chess).

The knight does say "may not double capture during the 2-step move". I take this to mean the initial 2-step move, and not its normal 1-step L-shaped move.

When a knight makes an L-shaped move, there are two ways to move over squares it jumps over. The optional capture allows TWO pieces on EITHER one of its two path to be captured, plus the destination square, correct? (so capturing three pieces possible in one move).

(or can the knight capture all 4 squares it jumps over, plus the destination, for 5 total captures)?

Last, I'm wondering if the very first sentence should be changed a little:

Instead of:
...but not mostly not because of it's L-shaped move...
better as(?):
...but mostly not because of it's L-shaped move...

Sorry to bring up minutiae, but I really like this game. If I didn't like it, I would't be asking these specific and detailed questions.:)

Thanks for the rules for Roman chess. How does one interpret the move notation for the king "KisO2". Is "isO2" a designator for royalty?

Also, what is the policy of CVP concerning web pages with obsolete information? Is only Hans Bodlaender allowed to change this page (based on "page made by Hans Bodlaender"), or can other editors update this page?

Is CVP accepting volunteers to help with cleaning up webpages (such as this page)?

The link on this page is still dead. With this page linking to a non-existing website, and almost no other information, I wonder if this page should be deleted altogether.

There are three other pages for "Roman Chess", so removing this page won't cause any harm - just good housekeeping.

If the idea is to keep the opponent king trapped, and to rescue your own king, why did both White and Black let the opponent kings escape on the first move?

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep your opponent's king trapped for as long as possible?

Just curious about something - is there anyway for a spectator to easily see the status of this tournament, or is it necessary for interested passers-by to seek through the individual games to see who's emerging as the leaders?
 

I agree that the concept of power density involves some assumptions that might cause the value to be an approximation. As you mentioned, it does assume that pieces have fixed values, even with a different mix of pieces, and different board sizes.

I do believe that if every game has a mix of pieces (as they do), such errors would tend to cancel out. For example, as board size changes, some pieces might gain slightly in value, while others lose value.

The only way to overcome such possible errors is if there was an accurate way to identify a piece's value based on the specific board size. I'm not aware of any work that has been completed to do this for a range of board sizes. At best, maybe we know the rough difference in value of a few pieces when they go from an 8x8 to 10x8 board. To my knowledge, there is no piece which has its value altered by such a large amount that it would render power density as grossly innacurate.

I believe the biggest error currently found in the power density table is the data for Chess on an Infinite Plane . Here a board size of 18 x 20 was assumed because it's the approximate span of pieces in the starting position. But the bulk of the dynamics in actual play is usually found in a much smaller area.

In fact, the tendency of pieces to try to "fight for the center" might be a phenomenon seen in all games, so the stated "board sizes" themselves might be an opportunity for refinement. But I'm reluctant to complicate the formula based only on conjecture. As we learn more about piece valuations for variant chess, I certainly can plan to refine the formula when there is merit to do so. For now, it's based on the theory that "Simple and approximate" is better than "Complex with speculation".

As mentioned before, I completed a calculation of the "Material Power Density" for "Chess and a Half".

First, to explain what this ratio is - it is simply the sum of the value of all chess pieces on the board, divided by the playing area (number of squares).

This paramater may give some prediction of the style of play that can be expected from a game. Higher density usually means pieces have more attacking possibilities, and games can enter into dynamic attacks quickly - requiring fast responses from the other side. A lower density means that the opening development may last longer, with a stronger focus (for example) on the placement of pawns.

From lowest to highest is the "Material Power Density" of several games I've analyzed, with "Chess and a Half" now added in the list.

                     Board         Number   Piece    Power    Ratio to
                     Size (sqs)    of Pcs.  Density  Density  Classical Chess
———————————————————— ————————————  ———————  ———————  ———————  ———————————————
Classical Chess      8 x 8 =  64   32       50%      1.34     1.00
Infinite Plane(1)            360   76       21%      0.56     0.42
A Chess Endgame(2)   8 x 8 =  64    7      (11%)     0.64     0.48
Chess and a Half     12 x 12= 144  48       33%      1.04     0.78
Bulldog Legacy Chess 10 x 8 = 80   36       45%      1.10     0.82
Bulldog Chess        10 x 8 = 80   40       50%      1.31     0.98
Bulldog Chess(Witch) 10 x 8 = 80   40       50%      1.35     1.01
Janus Chess          10 x 8 = 80   40       50%      1.53     1.14
Capablanca Chess     10 x 8 = 80   40       50%      1.55     1.16
Seirawan Chess(3)    8 x 8 =  64   36      [56%]     1.88     1.40
Musketeer Chess(4)   8 x 8 =  64   36      [56%]     1.88     1.40
Chu Shogi            12 x 12= 144  92      [64%]     1.91     1.43
Amsterdam Chess      11 x 8 = 88   44       50%      1.95     1.46
Waterloo Chess       10 x 10= 100  60      [60%]     2.72     2.03

(1) - Chess on an Infinite Plane: Play is assumed to be in an 18 x 20 range. This is the horizontal span and 2 ranks less than the vertical span of the outermost pieces (starting position). Little play is presumed to take place in the outermost ranks except for pieces moving inward.
(2) - A chess endgame: A sample 7-piece ending with KQRR vs. KQR.
(3) - Seirawan and Musketeer Chess: Data assumes all pieces are on board. Some pieces are introduced early or later in the game.
(4) - Musketeer Chess: Assumes game with archbishop and chancellor played as the new pieces.

Chess and Half (4th in list) is interesting in that is has a very low piece density (48 pieces on 144 squares), and the material density is 78% compared to that of chess (100%). This is in the range of games that have become my favorite to play. They usually feature an opening with time for tactical development, rather than the players always reacting only to exact threats from the opponent.

I've seen plenty of variants where the dynamics suffer from too much power concentrated into a normal size chess board.  I would really like to try this game sometime, and as mentioned, if it's ever withing the scope of a chess engine, see if a human can win, or how two engines do against each other.

HGMuller's formula is interesting, and it's good to see there's a way to expand its scope by using ELC. Muller presented the formula as:

  value = 33*ELC + (33*ELC)*(33*ELC)/1584)

I prefer it a little more as:

  value = 33*ELC + 0.6875*(ELC)^2

In this form the variable occurs once for its linear component (33xELC) and once for its polynomial component (0.6875*(ELC)^2).

But this is just a minor stylistic preference. More generally, it's very interesting that a rather simple formula can be quite accurate for a wide range of leapers. Not sure if there's any future possibility (by Muller or others) to ammend it for longer range leapers. Of course, work like this always requires a lot of engine analysis, and follow-up evaluation of the data.

Good work on the formula!

Btw, do we know that Lasker's estimate of a king's value in an endgame (4) might not be too far off? The study that I did (which basically just confirmed previous work by Muller) was to estimate the value of a guard/commoner for the entirety of a chess-game (10x8 board).

From my study alone, I cannot dispute Lasker's estimate. As far as I know, it might be possible that a non-royal king might be worth a little more on an 8x8 board, and yet a little more in an end-game only situation.

Joe Joyce (and others interested):

Here's the details of my tests to estimate the value of a guard. Using Fairy-Max, I set up games on a 10x8 board. Pieces on each side placed as: RXNBQKBNXR.

X represents a variable piece, which was always different between black and white.
For example, black might have X = two knights and white has X = two guards (or vice-versa). Then I ran games (engine vs. engine with long time control) and kept track of scores. In all cases the armies were switched (W/B) so that half the games were each way. (scores are based on win = 1, draw = 0.5, loss = 0).

First, one problem in setting up a test is that Fairy-Max requires all pieces to have an assigned value, and going into a test the assigned value of a guard is unknown.

The first approximatelly 200 games were to "hunt" for the guard's best assigned value. I found guards play best with an assigned value between 300 and 375. Within this range games were not sensitive to their assigned value. But if the assigned value is lower (tested 250) or higher (tested 400) then guards don't help their side to play well (and these results are discarded from the final summary).

An Overall Summary of only games where guards have this "optimal" assigned value (300, 350, or 375):

asymmetry: [2 guards vs. 2 bishops]
guards win (score) = 40/80 = 50.0%

asymmetry: [2 guards vs. 2 knights]
guards win (score) = 46/80 = 57.5%

asymmetry: [2 guards vs. 1 bishop and 1 knight]
guards win (score) = 101/200 = 50.5%

Conclusion (on a 10x8 board, with other FIDE chess pieces):
A guard's value is:
1) equal to a bishop.
2) slightly superior to a knight.

If any questions or comments feel free to leave a message.

Kevin, thanks for your information about piece values. Your comment about a queen being more powerful on larger boards is interesting, and a good point.

A few months ago I used HGMuller's Fairy-Max to play a bunch of games to estimate the value of a guard (to confirm or dispute HGMuller's earlier work). I did it on a 10x8 board, and used the 4 extra squares for pieces to add guards and/or minor pieces. From these tests, I found that a guard is very nearly equal to a bishop, and slightly superior to a knight. (let me know if anyone would like more info about test details).

Nicolino, I hope you don't get rid of any of the Star Cats just because of their power.

This is a big board, so there's room for a few powerful pieces. Opponents have plenty of room to maneuver, create defenses, avoid attacks, and to create counter-attacks.

Btw, even though HGMuller's formula applies only to short-range leapers, I suspect it still might be good for pieces which jump up to 3 squares away when played on a large board.

Long range jumpers on a small board have the problem that long jumps go "off the board". But on a large board, attack points are more likely to useful, possibly helping the formula to remain accurate.

Maybe within a week or two, I'll calculate the "power density" of this game. It's a method I've used to determine the relative power of all pieces as a ratio to board size, and compare it with other games. I believe it's a useful measure of how "dynamic" the play can be expected to be. I'll update here if/when I finish the calculation.

I believe it just means that that the Cat and Star-Cat can capture pieces within its intermediate move pattern. So for example a Star Cat on d4 can capture pieces on e5, f6, and g7 (in one move).

But being optional is interesting. I think it would be uncommon for one of the cats to not want to capture a piece while jumping over it. But there may be situations, for example to leave an opponent's pawn in place if the pawn is blocking a slider from attacking a more valuable piece.

I just realized it also probably means that Fairy-Max can't play this. And my estimate for the value of a Star-Cat may be low, due to multi-capture ability.

But since it's not a long distance mover, I don't think it has overwhelming power, and would still play perfectly in this game.

With the rule changes I think this is now a nearly perfectly designed variant.

Chess is already a very complicated game in the sense of being able to "calculate" moves. Even normal chess cannot be perfectly calculated even if a modern engine had the support of supercomputers.

So in my opinion, it is never necessary to purposelly add rules simply for the sake of "adding complexity" (similar to Greg's comments). The complexity in chess is already inherent in the game itself. (For this same reason, I never add ice cubes to beer, and my coffee is not adulterated with extra flavorings).

This variant now has all the elements of a well-designed game: simple and clean graphics, good mix of traditional and new pieces, rooks placed traditionally at the corners, etc. The pawns also being allowed to make up to an initial quadruple-step, and knights a double-step is also good due to the large board.

Now just two more comments:

1) Nicolino says that pawns can't promote to Star Cat because that would be an overwhelming power increase. Using HGMuller's formula (value = 1.1*N*(30 +(5/8)*N), centipawns) the Star Cat should be worth about 12 points. I don't think that's too much, especially with the large board. But a reason to not allow it might be that the game already starts with 4 Cats and 4 Star-Cats, so promoting to queens or other pieces forces more variety on the board.

2) Also, with the rule clarifications/changes, I believe that Fairy-Max can be setup to play this game (please correct me if I'm wrong). Greg also said that after "play testing" this game in theory could be added to ChessV (a future possibility?) So for the sake of discussion could Fairy-Max be set-up to use one ChessV engine, or vice-versa? If so, an engine-vs-engine game (different codes) might be possible. That would be really interesting, especially for a game that is just barelly within the range of the engines that I'm aware of.

One final minor note: Rule#3 has a typo ("becuase" -> "because").

Good work on the game Nicolino!

Thanks for the info. I did suspect that this game for a few reasons is pressing the limits of what variant chess engines can play. (Games will always be ahead of engines, if for no other reason that nobody makes an engine before the game. Plus, I'm sure programming is not a fast easy task, especially for chess).

HGMuller: Keep us up-to-date when HaChu is released!

Greg: I didn't know that a link to ChessV is in the "Play" menu. In an internal (CVP) search for ChessV, results for both pages come up (plus less related pages). Users will have a 50/50 chance of finding a useful page on the first try.

About "Chess and a Half". This board is 1.5x as wide as a normal chessboard - is that why it's "Chess and Half"? At this size it has 144 squares, so has 144/64 = 2.25 times as many squares. Not counting the new pieces, I think this is massivelly more complex than ordinary chess. Btw: I like how you kept the tradition "queen starts on her own color", and I also like how each of the two knight face in opposite directions. Even late in the game, when there's just one knight of a color, you can know which one survived.

Even the minutiae appears to be well-thought out. Great work!

This looks like an interesting game, and I like many aspects of it - including its large size, good blend of traditional and new pieces, and clean crisp graphics. They work together well to create an interesting and appealing game.

I was wondering what it would take to play this engine-vs-engine.

The first thing I noticed is that CVPs page on ChessV brings up an error. Is this related to the recent server move?

I've also read that ChessV has a scripting option, which might allow custom variants to be entered and played. Is this game (Chess and a half) within the possibility to enter as a script? I've never tried anything like that, but I'm always willing to try new things.

Lastly, I know that custom variants can be entered to Fairy-Max. Does anyone know off-hand if this variant is within the size limit of Fairy-Max?

With a little bit of work, I MIGHT be able to get an engine-vs-engine game going of this variant. That would be really awesome. Why play myself, if I can let an engine do the work???

Thank Fergus,

(Q1) Playing eight games concurently with time-control (4 moves/week) is playing an average of 4.6 moves per day. Obviously it would be good to learn all the games rules before-hand. That's a bit much to learn "on-the-fly".

(Q2) Thanks for the answer.

(Q3) Thanks. Someone on one of these forums once mentioned cyborg chess, and I wasn't sure if that was the format. A format (human + computer) vs (human + computer) could be fun too. I just wanted to know for sure (better to know the rules before the game starts rather than in the middle of the game).

Playing eight games concurently is a bit much for me with my other commitments, but sounds fun. Good luck!!

Three questions (sorry if these were already answered, but I couldn't immediatelly see these topics in the rules or the thread):

1) There are 7 categories. If we sign-up does that mean we are committed to playing seven games (1 in each category)? We play only one game at a time?

2) If we have an extended time without access to internet (travel or work assignment) can we use "spare time" while game is on-hold?

3) Is computer-assistance allowed (I haven't checked, but I believe some of these games can be played on chess engines).

Thanks:)

Thanks for the update. Also, I think it's usually better to work on one game, and release it, rather than two at once.

Also (btw), I think games are fine even if they aren't in ChessV.

ChessV is awesome because you can play games against it, as well as see your moves analyzed. On the other-hand, if you play chess on-line with long time-control, you may always be worried your opponent might be using ChessV to help.

So some games not being in ChessV is good.

Also, we have to keep Greg busy with programming!!

Hi Aurelian and Greg, just to throw in my opinion, I don't think draws are a problem in chess. It's just a 3rd possible outcome.

Games can still be intense and filled with interesting and spectacular play. Here's a good example of an interesting game that ended in draw:

See Kasparov shaking his head.

Greg: Btw, I've been enjoying your ChessV program. Excellent work!

Hi Aurelian, I'm glad you are feeling better. What was the result of the Wizard being too dangerous? Did it give White too much of an advantage, or some other consequence?

Also, what does the Wizard do. In the notes below it says "steps one step diagonally or makes a (3,1) leap." Is it the ability to attack the 1st (or 8th) rank pieces over the pawns that made it too dangerous?

At one chess-playing forum, there are at least two games of my version "Chess on an Infinite Plane" being played. One of them is a team competition (3 players vs. 3 players). Another game in-progress is called "Chess on an Infinite Plane with Huygens Option" which is the same as Trappist-1 (a game described here at CVP).

Also, the huygens has received attention among the math community. An example is at the StackExchange Talk Forum, and also at the Talk Page of Joel Hamkins "A position in infinite chess with game value ω^4".

Please let me know if you'd like me to show any specific links.

Thanks as always Fergus,

Hi Fergus, I'm sorry - I did recieve your e-mail this morning but didn't realize you had sent it. To answer your questions about infinite chess, there are currently a few games in progress and some of them are on public game forums. (One game is a team competition between two groups, with one move being declared about every two days). Infinite chess is also being discussed on math forums, because of how it affects the ability of chess to be analyzed by game theory, and chess-playing software.

I did delete your graphic from my submission, because I will of course respect your artwork if you don't want it used for the huygens.

I also added a mention of Hans Bodlaender, and a link to a page where he discussed infinite chess in 2001. (As you know Hans was very innovative, and it's good to see the current team of editors for CVP continue to carry on his tradition).

I understand that the Piececlopedia is for pieces with a long tradition, so I understand you may not want it included there. But I hope you will make the article about the huygens visible to the public, so that these pages continue to be useful to people who might want to learn more about Infinite Chess, and the pieces that are used with it.

As always, I really appreciate your support.

I've heard of some of those sequences, but not all of them. I had to look up the pancake numbers.

For example, for 4 pancakes, there's 3 ways it might be in an unorganized stack so that it requries 4 flips with a spatula to organize it (from large to small), 11 that require 3, 6 for 2, 3 for 1, and 1 for 0. So a 4 pancake stack gives a pancake sequence of 3, 11, 6, 3, and 1. (Or 1, 3, 6, 11, 3 in reverse order).

But I don't understand the pancake sequence that you showed. It's not a sequence for any stack of pancakes. Am I not on the right path to what a pancake sequence is? Were some pancakes burned and thrown away? Let me know!

After reading these comments I became curious what graphic set is used for Chess with different armies (the version shown on this thread). I couldn't find out. Does anyone know?
 

OK, thanks for answering. In a few weeks I might try ChessV.

I noticed the package includes Fairy-Max. Does ChessV and Fairy-Max share any code, or are they distinct programs?

Regards, :)

I noticed that ChessV plays two multi-move variants (Marseillais Chess and Doublemove Chess).

Does anyone have a good record of played games for either of these (either human play or computer play)? It seems the games are usually very short. I was wondering what the average length of play would be for games of these variants.

I've been thinking of trying a game of "Chess on an Infinite Plane" where double-moves are allowed, or maybe only double-moves of pawns, or pawn plus one other piece. A link to the game is here):

If anyone has info on analysis (computer or otherwise) for multi-move games I would love to learn about it!