[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
As an ambitious CV developer I would like to hear some judgements on big-board variants, i.e. which ones you prefer and why. For instance, how about Omega Chess? (If you want a better graphics, you can download it here (zipped)).
And how about Grand Chess, which is rather popular? (There is also a zrf of this CV, as a variant in 'Fairy Chess'on the Zillions CD).
The reason why I implemented my own big-board chess, Mastodon Chess (updated yesterday), was that I wanted a variant where tactics was toned town. I fear that one tends to develop variants that suit one's own preferences too much.
at a certain point with large boards and many pieces, a variant should probably have multiple moves per side at a time, instead of 1 move per side... or the pieces should be really powerful... if you have a large board with single-moves and weak pieces, time can become a factor... some people might think it takes too long to play so i would imagine that, when designing the 'ideal' large board chess variant each of us attempts to factor these considerations in board size piece power moves per side time
Hi Mats! From large chess variants I prefer Capablanca chess variation with good initial setup. For example, Gothic chess or Embassy chess.
The reason is that for ordinary chess player it is quite easy to remember moves of chancellor and archbishop and these new pieces add interesting tactical and strategic elements to the game.
Andreas, thanks for this information. What surprises me is that there exist no zrf of these two variants although they are easy to implement. Mats
SMIRF http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html This is currently the strongest program available that is free and fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants. It loads Embassy Chess (MBC) and several other games automatically at the push of a button. Gothic Chess, having a US patent, requires payment. Allegedly, the best opening setup is found in this game: Optimized Chess 8H x 10W http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/opti/ Of course, there are many ways to approach 'big-board CV's'.
Derek, thanks for those links, I will try it out. But meanwhile I had already created a zrf for 'Teutonic Chess' and 'Embassy Chess'. If you want to try Gothic Chess you only need to change positions between Chancellor and Archbishop in the initial position of Teutonic Chess (right-click). It can be downloaded
here. (zipped). Maybe those pieces invented by Capa are usable, after all.
Mats
Mats
I realized today that Mr Duniho implemented Embassy Chess already (Jan 2006), and other large board variants in LargeChess. But in his Embassy Chess there is a bug where the king only jumps two steps when castling on the queen's wing (should be three steps). I've reported it to him.
(However, my implementation has an advantage, namely that the engine more readily castles, thanks to tweaking, but I will not publish this zrf on this site because it is redundant.)
(However, my implementation has an advantage, namely that the engine more readily castles, thanks to tweaking, but I will not publish this zrf on this site because it is redundant.)
Can't get SMIRF to work because there is a dll missing.
Anyway, it's possible to get Zillions to play well too, if one applies some tweaking so that it moves the centre pawns in the opening instead of hopping about with the light pieces, and also, to persuade it to castle. I've made those tweakings today in the 8x10 variants, downloadable here. Maybe I'll publish this after all, because it plays somewhat better than earlier publications.
I am thinking of implementing Hans Åberg's Capablanca variant, too, because it implies an improvement of the castle rules.
Anyway, it's possible to get Zillions to play well too, if one applies some tweaking so that it moves the centre pawns in the opening instead of hopping about with the light pieces, and also, to persuade it to castle. I've made those tweakings today in the 8x10 variants, downloadable here. Maybe I'll publish this after all, because it plays somewhat better than earlier publications.
I am thinking of implementing Hans Åberg's Capablanca variant, too, because it implies an improvement of the castle rules.
'Can't get SMIRF to work because there is a dll missing.' ____________________________________________________ Please notify the developer of SMIRF, Reinhard Scharnagl. He really cares about correcting flaws. Meanwhile ... 1. Try to run the program again. [Note- It will not run.] 2. Write down the name of the missing file when the error message pops-up. 3. Download the missing file for free from any of several web sites that provide this service. 4. Repeat process until all missing files are retrieved and the program runs. Dependencies are required, supporting files. This is a list of dependencies for 'SmirfGUI.exe'- activeds.dll adsldpc.dll advapi32.dll apphelp.dll borlndmm.dll cabinet.dll cc3270mt.dll comctl32.dll comdlg32.dll crypt32.dll dbghelp.dll dbrtl100.bpl dnsapi.dll gdi32.dll imagehlp.dll kernel32.dll lz32.dll mlang.dll mpr.dll msasn1.dll msi.dll msimg32.dll msvcrt.dll netapi32.dll netrap.dll ntdll.dll ntdsapi.dll ole32.dll oleacc.dll oleaut32.dll oledlg.dll rpcrt4.dll rtl100.bpl samlib.dll secur32.dll setupapi.dll sfc.dll sfcfiles.dll shell32.dll shlwapi.dll user32.dll userenv.dll vcl100.bpl vcldb100.bpl version.dll w32topl.dll winmm.dll winspool.drv wintrust.dll wldap32.dll ws2_32.dll ws2help.dll wsock32.dll The list of dependencies for 'SmirfEngine.dll' is unneeded since all of those files are already included in the first list.
Hi Mats! Since some week SMIRF's development environment has been changed from Borland C++ Builder 6 to Borland Developer Studio 2006 - and it still is beta. Thus it easily could happen, that not everything is as it should be. Nevertheless any bad experiences there not have been reported yet beside of your missed DLL. It would be helping to learn about that DLL's name. Thank you! P.S.: please note your OS version, too. Thank you. P.P.S.: there is a new setup now including the file 'borlndmm.dll'.
>This is currently the strongest program available that is free and
>fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants.
You must be pulling my leg. SMIRF immediately loses piece always, and I cannot set playing time to higher values.
>fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants.
You must be pulling my leg. SMIRF immediately loses piece always, and I cannot set playing time to higher values.
Mats, happy to see, that SMIRF is running now. But it seems, as if you have installed it into an existing folder containing outdated *.INI files. So unistall SMIRF, delete that folder and install again. Then you should be able to set bigger timings, too. Regards, Reinhard.
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
Hi Mats, the Help -> About should show: Version 1.3.4 - 0302, and User: Donationware Version - donate ! Otherwise you are starting an outdated version, e.g. within an old second SMIRF folder. Reinhard. http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html P.S.: SMIRF does not play like a fool. But it is answering in 0 seconds, if there is no valid key. The Donationware has its permanent key included.
at a certain point with large boards and many pieces, a variant should
probably have multiple moves per side at a time, instead of 1 move per
side...(Andy)
Double-move variants might be quite functional, at least if the double-move is constituted by a pawn move followed by a piece move. I've implemented this on an 8x8 board with regular pieces. This idea should be applicable on big boards, and with other pieces, too. There exist two variants of Twinmove Chess (zrf). In one variant pawn moves are compelled, until there exist no more pawn moves, when the pieces can continue moving without being preceded by a pawn move. In the other variant the player may abstain from the pawn move, and instead move a piece, but then he has lost his double-move.
Incidentally, I am amazed how relatively easy it is to create fully practicable chess variants. I didn't know this before. This occupation can be viewed almost as an art form. I now better understand why there exist chess variant societies, chess variant journals, and this very site. Actually, it reminds me of medieval alchemy, an activity that mixed rational 'scientific' content with imaginative creations. It is something about this mixture which is quite compelling. -- Mats
Double-move variants might be quite functional, at least if the double-move is constituted by a pawn move followed by a piece move. I've implemented this on an 8x8 board with regular pieces. This idea should be applicable on big boards, and with other pieces, too. There exist two variants of Twinmove Chess (zrf). In one variant pawn moves are compelled, until there exist no more pawn moves, when the pieces can continue moving without being preceded by a pawn move. In the other variant the player may abstain from the pawn move, and instead move a piece, but then he has lost his double-move.
Incidentally, I am amazed how relatively easy it is to create fully practicable chess variants. I didn't know this before. This occupation can be viewed almost as an art form. I now better understand why there exist chess variant societies, chess variant journals, and this very site. Actually, it reminds me of medieval alchemy, an activity that mixed rational 'scientific' content with imaginative creations. It is something about this mixture which is quite compelling. -- Mats
(Just uploaded a little improvement on my Twinmove Chess.)
Hello to all, I am wondering if here at non extreme competition site some answer is given. Stirred recently the BrainKing site because of claim? of some to have seen Fischer on large chess variant of Gothical Chess? Does know anyone about this? Game found here showing http://www.gothicchesslive.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=750 Can other say if Fischer is playing the one here? Sorry my Englisch is not the better!
Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 05:04 PM UTC:Gentlemen, let me stick an oar into these murky waters. My first question is: what do you mean by 'big board'? If you accept FIDE as the standard, then anything above 8x8 is 'big'. I would argue against that and the ideas that you need really powerful pieces, or even many pieces, and more than 1 move per turn. (At least up to, say 25x25 ;-) At 19x19, Go does quite well with merely putting non-moving pieces on the board one at a time. I've worked at 'large' sized boards (10x8, 10x10, 9x21, 16x16) and, now that I'm looking at it, the general trend is the larger the board, the fewer the pieces, and the ranges in 'linear' distance often decrease, but that's because the 9x21 is conceptually also 3x3x3x7 and the 16x16 is similarly also 4x4x4x4, so you can't go very far in any one 'direction'. Okay, you might think that last bit is all bs, but Go still elegantly demonstrates you don't need powerful pieces for a large board. And the 9x21 game (189 cells) is a chancellor chess variant using only the standard 9 pieces and pawns per side of chancellor chess. The 16x16 game (256) uses only the standard 8 pieces and pawns of FIDE per side. Andy Thomas has made some excellent points. I think he's right in all of them. I just need to know what size we're talking about, and am curious about the line between chess and wargames, like say 'Axis and Allies'. I would recommend HG Wells book 'Little Wars' as an excellent example of what is clearly over the line. (It's also got great photos.)
I doubt that there is much value in discussing GO in relation to chess variants large or small. There are many large chess variants with a variety of 'moving pieces' and Kings. GO is simply not a chess variant. But, perhaps Joe is being sarcastic? In regard to his statement that 'the general trend is the larger the board, the fewer the pieces, and the ranges in 'linear' distance often decrease' ... that certainly seems opposite of what I've seen. But, subtle jokes and sarcasm are plenty in the comments these days, so, perhaps Joe is just having some fun here.
Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Apr 30, 2006 06:02 PM UTC:Hey, Gary! Agreed Go is not a chess variant. It is at once much simpler and more complex than chess. I was using it as an example of a 'large' board game that has about the simplest, least powerful pieces possible. They just exist, they don't even move. The game is played 1 stone at a time. For those of us who are not experts, there isn't even a clearly defined end to the game. But it is an awesome game, and conceptually much simpler than chess. On a big board. Consider it a point in game-space, that nebulous conceptual area where all games reside, just outside a boundary of chess. It's like 'Little Wars' in that respect, using much of the trappings of chess-like games, but being clearly outside the boundary. So we can define 'chess' by triangulation, if you like, or not, if not. As to my statement about the size & range trend, it was in strict reference to my designs. I apologize for not making that clear. Specifically, with reference to Hyperchess, Walkers and Jumpers, and my large shatranj variants, the statement is [reasonably] true. BTW, I hope you like the new piece designs for Grand Shatranj, Gary. I will admit to being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in my whole approach to this topic, though. Just because they're attacking my whole design philosophy of minimalism and simplicity is not reason enough to get all exercised. ;-) Enjoy. Joe
Joe: Thanks for the elaboration. It clarifies things quite a bit. As for GO, I am familiar with it and am currently playing a game of it over the internet. But still, I would not consider the GO stones as chess pieces any more than I would consider the 'X' and 'O' of tic-tac-toe to be pieces. The fact that GO pieces work well on a 19 x 19 board has no signifigance to chess pieces. I am inclined to agree with the opinion that larger boards can more easily accomodate pieces with greater mobility... and that multi-move turns are more at home on such boards... as are larger numbers of different piece types.
Hi, Joe and Gary. I'm a huge fan of both of you and your chess variant contributions. There is a chess / go combo that really has me fascinated and I'm wondering whether either of you have checked it out. It's called Gess. http://www.chessvariants.com/crossover.dir/gess.html
Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, May 1, 2006 01:14 AM UTC:Hi, Gary. Okay, you said: 'I am inclined to agree with the opinion that larger boards can more easily accomodate pieces with greater mobility... and that multi-move turns are more at home on such boards... as are larger numbers of different piece types.' Me, too. I just felt that two things were being fluffed over. One is how big 'big' is; and the other has to do with designing increasing numbers of pieces and powers as you increase board size. I personally feel 8x8 is small; but I don't agree that larger boards mean more pieces. I think an often more elegant solution is to use a few pieces on a large board. This allows the workings of the pieces and the board to stand out more clearly. This is, of course, personal preference only. Where I differ from you is in 2 other statements: 'But still, I would not consider the GO stones as chess pieces any more than I would consider the 'X' and 'O' of tic-tac-toe to be pieces' and 'The fact that GO pieces work well on a 19 x 19 board has no signifigance to chess pieces.' Those two statements go right to the foundation of my design philosophy. When I first decided to design games seriously, I thought about what any game was, how to look at it, and where I could stake out a unique position. I look at a game as (almost always) having 3 components, pieces, rules and board. Go stones, X's and O's, chessmen, they're all the same in this view, the game pieces. The difference is in the rules: the 1st two games' play involves placing the pieces on the board in an advantageous way; chess already has the pieces on the board, play involves moving the pieces advantageously. The above is a gross simplification, but this post is already long. I'll finish by suggesting that Go pieces are only a shift from wazirs and ferzes. In conceptual space, Go is fairly close to one 'side' of chess, and 'Little Wars' or Axis and Allies are roughly on the other side of chess, fairly close, along the complexity line. Tic-tac-toe is on the other side of Go from chess and the other games along that complexity line. Enjoy. Joe
Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, May 1, 2006 01:40 AM UTC:Hey, Jeremy - yes I have looked at Gess, and I think it's an excellent idea that hurts my head. Simple, brilliant, and leading to possibly mind-boggling complexity. I like it and I'm afraid to play it. I see LL Smith wrote a zillions implementation for it; I'd recommend checking it out. Michael Howe mentioned being interested a year ago... maybe someone is now. I suspect it's easily as much a game of pattern recognition as it is a game of chess. ps: if you like my games, you're easily impressed - admittedly, I like 'em, but everyone who knows me knows I'm easily impressed - enjoy ;-) pps: Gess is a great example of an 18x18 with delightfully simple pieces and rules. I'm almost tempted to play it.
Jeremy: Thanks for the game compliments for Joe and me. Much appreciated. On your other note: I looked briefly at Gess, and noticed that those stones move and that I will need to revisit the rules to get a better feel for that game. In regard to the other conversation (with Joe), Joe stated, 'I look at a game as (almost always) having 3 components, pieces, rules and board. Go stones, X's and O's, chessmen, they're all the same in this view, the game pieces. The difference is in the rules: the 1st two games' play involves placing the pieces on the board in an advantageous way; chess already has the pieces on the board, play involves moving the pieces advantageously.' Response: But GO stones, X's, and O's, unlike chess pieces, lack mobility once placed... it is the 'zero-mobility' that is of interest here. My point was simply that large boards are a good home for long-range pieces and more types of pieces. Saying that this is not the case by using GO for comparision is where I disagree, simply because GO (as it has existed for 4,000 years) is simply not a Chess-like game. The fact that pieces do not move is very important here. So I am more inclined to look at Turkish Great Chess from the 1700's, Freeling's Grand Chess, Trice's Gothic Chess, etc. when discussing Big Board CVs. And though GO uses a big board, it still is not a CV. On a related note, I am playing a game of Duke of Rutland. It is a large variant with conventional pieces and one excpetion piece (moves like a Rook or King) ... to me that board's size is almost crying for more mowerful pieces and a few different piece types. To replace existing pieces with shorter range ones, or to reduce the exisiting (limited variety) would make that game worse.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.