[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Capablanca Random Chess. Randomized setup for Capablanca chess. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Gothic Chess, being a derivative of Capablanca Chess, has no exclusive claim upon Capablanca Chess. Neither does it have a claim upon Fischer's Random Chess. Thus how does combining these two independent forms, which it has absolutely no claim upon, be actionable on the part of Gothic Chess?
To Larry L. Smith: It seems you are targeting, that CRC should not care at all on Gothic Chess. May be you could be right. But I do not intend to have any unnecessary quarrel about that theme, so I prefer to exclude some few (15 arrays) positions. I think the remaining 21821 starting arrays nevertheless should be sufficient for CRC.
Today I have sent in an updated version of the CRC proposal. I hope that it could replace the old initial version soon and that it then would be much better to read. I want to thank here Mr. Bodlaender and all others, who help together to publish those new proposals within this 10-chess contest and for the big efforts they are putting into this huge chessvariants project! P.S.: Are there any ideas how to accomplish changed contents to become exchanged here on this site?
Are there any changes to the rules that I need to change in the Game Courier preset?
To Fergus Duniho: No, the rules still are the same, the overall layout should have been improved. According to your CRC Game Courier Preset I am still not familiar how to randomize or to preset a special position number. It seems to always create the same array.
You might not be giving it the opportunity to change its seed for the random number generator. It will normally pick a fresh seed at the beginning of each new game, but you may sometimes have to refresh the page to make this happen. It has no facility for letting you choose the array you want. It always automatically generates a random array.
Are there any ideas how to accomplish changed contents to become exchanged here on this site?
A) Sorry for not having accomplished to update the CRC content here. B) There is a first public beta of Smirf (about 1.3 MB), unrestricted until 2005/06/30. Of course this chess program is subject to further improvements: http://de.geocities.com/rsmuenchen/ The program should be handled intuitively. But also notice: a) the board could be turned by clicking on a corner of the board, b) in edit mode castling rights easyly could be switched by clicking the file letters near the involved rooks. This simplifies a consistent management of castling rights especially with Chess960 positions (maybe an idea for Arena), c) you will find possibilities to select how move possibilities should be shown or not in the help menu, d) double clicking on a move of the list of possible moves will show that move and preselect it, e) double clicking on a move of the game list will reposition the game to the related situation.
Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Apr 26, 2005 12:03 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★The Beta of SMIRF is quite nice! Good user interface, nice set of features, and intelligent play. It would be nice if you would consider making it open-source.
Well, I am still no fan of Open Source here. Nevertheless I have published the details of the new TMCI protocol, thus making it freely usable. That is, because I am arguing for open standards and interface descriptions.
This looks like a good game. I like Fischer Random Chess, as well as some of the variants played on this board with these pieces. So I expect the combination to be good.
a) CRC (Capablanca Random Chess) will be supported soon by http://www.brainking.com . b) There is a time limited Beta of SMIRF FullChess program (full functional) playing a lot of variants including CRC, for download see http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html . Regards, Reinhard Scharnagl.
Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Sep 1, 2005 01:17 AM UTC:I have been trying this version, but have some difficulties... I have been using Janus Chess for testing. First, no matter which timing mode I use, the program always seems to make its move in less than a second. Second problem is that I do not see where you decide which side(s) are computer controlled. After a manual move is entered, it starts thinking, but I see no way to make the computer play itself... Otherwise, the program looks nice. Keep up the good work!
Hi Greg, > I have been trying this version, but have some difficulties... > I have been using Janus Chess for testing. yes, from time to time there is a fully testable Smirf version, which is only time limited by an attached testing key. > First, no matter which timing mode I use, the program always seems > to make its move in less than a second. That is Smirf's behaviour when the testing key is wrong or timed out. The current beta package has a working key valid until end of September. So I prosume you are not testing the current package or have it repeatedly installed into an already existing Smirf folder where an outtimed key has been stored in its ini file (and would not be replaced). Thus repeat the installing procedure but delete any existing Smirf INI file before. In the reduced mode you are describing, Smirf abilities still could be inspected, but thinking time and some abilities are reduced. This is because Smirf is intended to become Shareware later. > Second problem is that I do not see where you decide which side(s) > are computer controlled. After a manual move is entered, it starts > thinking, but I see no way to make the computer play itself... Well, Smirf does not play against itself. It is planned to install a special form of remote playing ability to enable playing with other 10x8 chess programs. That would help to also test different engine versions to hopefully detect progresses. There is a check box 'automatic'. Switch it off, and you could enter as much moves as you like without Smirf's answering. You also could switch into the edit mode and e.g. switch the active color. > Otherwise, the program looks nice. Keep up the good work! Same for your ChessV! I hope for this there would be a remote protocol installed, too (and a beep). Ed Trice has proposed one, but it seems not to be sufficiently flexible to also support other 10x8 Chess variants. Thus I try to implement a compatible protocol superset. Do you have matching ideas? Regards, Reinhard.
Hello Greg Strong! I see, that you have tried to test out a more recent SMIRF version. First download the actual beta 1.26 from http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html . If you want to install it into an existing directory, make sure, that this would be empty (no INI file might exist there). The current beta has a free testing key including October. To start a game with white, simply enter a move. To make Smirf use the white pieces, simply press the right button (with the flash symbol). I just have played some Janus Chess games with it and ChessV, SMIRF has become really strong. ;-) Reinhard.
Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Oct 19, 2005 04:27 PM UTC:Reinhard: Thank you for the information, and for your continued work on SMIRF! It is much easier for me to develop and test ChessV now that I have another strong Universal Chess Program against which to test it. I'll download the new version you mention and check it out soon... Also, you should be aware that the last two versions of ChessV (0.8 and 0.81) have a really bad bug which results in the program making really stupid moves on rare occasions. I've fixed this, but haven't gotten around to uploading a correction. In the next couple of days I will upload a new version... Out of curiousity, have you looked at the source code to ChessV? And, if so, has it veen of help to you? Just curious. I would also be curious to know what technologies SMIRF uses (such as null move, forward pruning, quiescent search, singular extensions, etc.) Thanks! Greg
Hi Greg, the only chess program I have inspected ever has been an early version of GNU. I then immediately decided not to use anything from it. So SMIRF is completely self developed. But some strategies as known and documented in literature have influenced me. Actual today is SMIRF 1.28. As far as I can see SMIRF has a very different data structure. It is a flat interpreted 15x12 array. The pieces consist of bit encoded properties and are members of two double linked always sorted lists. There are two concurring pruning strategies: intelligence feed back (self invented) and controlled single nullmove (less important). There is only ONE engine playing a lot of 8x8 and 10x8 chess variants compatibly including traditional chess rules, Fischer castlings and the extended Capablanca piece set. One exceptional extension is Janus Chess with its symmetric castling. The evaluation (still very weak) is not done at quiet nodes but at deescalated nodes, which means, that also positional combinations are terminated instead of only piece exchanges.
There now a german language description is available at wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca-Random-Chess
material values- all pieces Capablanca Random Chess http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/values-capa.pdf
Hi Derek, your values now are also shown at my site at http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html, around where you also could find my reworked piece value derivation.
Thank you for publishing my results. Doing so implies that you have some trust in my calculation method even as it differs from your own and the English-German language barrier creates apprehension. We are all trying to reach the same destination (accurate relative piece values). We just have different reasons for taking different roads in pursuit of it. Unfortunately, the subject is just too complicated to be approached exclusively from math and geometry as applied to games. Where value judgments are necessarily required (for instance, in determining the details of a formula and what 'looks right' based only upon estimated material values of pieces in well-established games that seem to work well), philosophy becomes involved. Thereafter, the dangerous line between 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' and 'the unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy' (to quote Dr. Steven Weinberg) is approached. For what it is worth, your set of material values for pieces in CRC fall into the safe, flat scale between the relatively compressed scale of Trice and the relatively expanded scale of Nalls. So, if there is anything at all reliable within the work of any of the 3 of us, then your calculations for pieces in CRC are either the most accurate or the 2nd most accurate.
Richard,
Here is some information I have on the value of the Carrera pieces which I came up with when designing my own Carrera-esque opening setup:
Here is a table of four different derived values for the pieces, obtained from three different chess variant playing computer programs and one other source.- Sam
Piece ChessV SMIRF Zillions Aberg Pawn 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Knight 2.500 3.056 2.362 3.000 Bishop 3.250 3.690 2.859 3.300 Rook 4.700 5.604 4.262 5.000 Queen 8.750 9.558 7.060 9.000 Archbishop 6.500 6.838 5.127 6.800 Marshall 8.250 8.832 6.659 8.700 The ChessV numbers were obtained by looking at the source code for ChessV. The SMIRF values, derived by Reinhard Scharnagl for his SMIRF chess computer program, were obtained from this web page. The Zillions of Games' values were obtained by looking at the values of pieces by right-clicking on them after loading a fresh Schoolbook zrf file, and before moving any pieces. Aberg's figures come from right here on the variants server.
All four agree on the following:
The verdict is still out on some other exchanges:
- A bishop is about a half-pawn more valuable than a knight.
- Two knights are worth more than a rook.
- An archbishop is worth more than two knights.
- A marshall is worth more than an archbishop.
- A queen is worth more than a marshall.
- Two rooks are worth more than a queen.
- A marshall is worth more than a rook and knight.
- A marshall is worth more than two bishops.
- A rook and knight are worth more than an archbishop.
- A rook and bishop vs. a queen.
- A rook and bishop vs. a marshall.
- A bishop and knight vs. an archbishop.
- Two bishops vs. an archbishop (Two bishops are probably worth more).
Hi Sam, please note, that SMIRF's evaluation model currently has been changed (and as I hope simplified) concerning it's third basic mobility component. Thus the values you mentioned are no more identic to the actual, sorry. (The third component is still subject to change, I tend to simplify it even more.)
P=1.000, N=3.053, B=3.500, K=3.722, R=5.815, A=6.858, C=8.870, Q=9.617
See for it at the: SMIRF-Site
P=1.000, N=3.053, B=3.500, K=3.722, R=5.815, A=6.858, C=8.870, Q=9.617
See for it at the: SMIRF-Site
Hi Derek, SMIRF is still beta. It is designed to be shareware in the form of donationware. On its download page there is the possibility to make a donation via paypal to support the project. Any serious donation will be answered by sending back a permanent personal key, which will stay valid for follow up versions. Without a key SMIRF will always answer immediately, thus not showing its full strength. See: SMIRF download page. Because of Gothic's patent, GC currently is not supported directly, nevertheless any 8x8 or 10x8 position could be set up manually.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.