Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The piece you captured is called Hand piece, and the hand piece is placed on a Piece stand(the square plate on which you place the captured piece).

Does this mean you can only have one hand peice?  Or can you hold many, like in Shogi?

Hand piece is a direct translation of Shogi's Mochigoma(手駒).

So the hand piece is the same as Shogi's mochigoma.

Naturally, you can use any piece you capture as your hand piece.

How come the black boxes on this page say "the author has 3 accepted submissions" as well as "never published anything before on CVP"?

H.G.Muller // I don't even know why... I found out it now

Daphne, I think something's possibly not clear from your last post that was addressed to Greg. That is, in the case a player has several captured piece types during a game, whether he or she can drop any one of those captured pieces on the board on their turn, if they wish to. Hope I'm expressing clearly what I think may be a possible issue here.

For promotion you say "reaches or leaves the camp". What if the move stays entirely within the camp?

You realize that under the specified rules one can win by perpetual checking, because that turns into checkmate at the moment where the only evasion would become a (4th) repetition? This is generally perceived as very unsatisfactory. It might be better to exempt check evasions from the repetition rule; this will still prevent perpetual repetion, but always puts the burden to deviate on the checking player, rather than on the one that happened to repeat first.

Kevin Pacey // Well, I guess my explanation was insufficient.

Every piece of your opponent you capture becomes your 'hand piece'. On your turn, you may place one of your hand pieces on an empty square of the board. (This is called 'drop'.)

However, in order to drop, you must not move any piece during your turn, and after dropping, you must pass the turn to your opponent.

And your hand piece Pawn cannot drop into the last (9th) rank, nor can it drop on a file that already has your Pawn. (It is possible to deliver a check or checkmate to an opponent by dropping a pawn.)

That said, the hand piece works the same as Shogi's mochigoma, except that the Pawn can make a checkmate with a drop.

H. G. Muller // If a piece in the enemy camp moves while staying at the enemy camp, it will also eventually reach the enemy camp. Therefore, it must be promoted.

If a player makes three forced defenses in the same sequence to block an opponent's attack, that player may lose. If this happens, it can be an unsatisfactory game for the player. However, in this game, there is only victory or defeat, there is no draw. And I think these rules make the game more aggressive.

(By the way, I have played the AI versus AI game several times with Fairy Stockfish, but I have not yet seen a case where I was defeated by three fold repetition.)

Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2022-11-02 UTC

H. G. Muller // If a piece in the enemy camp moves while staying at the enemy camp, it will also eventually reach the enemy camp. Therefore, it must be promoted.

That is not what 'reach' means in English. It means coming from the outside.

If the player who perpetually checks loses there would also be no draw. Any loss could be described as unsatisfactory for the player who loses. The point, however, is that it is generally perceived as unsatisfactory for the neutral observer. And hence a defect of the game rules.

I assume the variants.ini you describe is the configuration file for Variant-Stockfish. (It might be a good idea to mention that... As it is readers have no clue what it means.) Since that file specified perpetually checking is a loss, ("perpetualCheckIllegal = true") it can hardly be a surprise that Stockfish does not do it. It just means you have it play according to different rules than you describe in your article.

H.G. Muller //

That is not what 'reach' means in English. It means coming from the outside.

I got it. Added text related to it to the promotion rules.

If the player who perpetually checks loses there would also be no draw. Any loss could be described as unsatisfactory for the player who loses. The point, however, is that it is generally perceived as unsatisfactory for the neutral observer. And hence a defect of the game rules.

However, it is the identity of this game that draw does not exist, so there is no intention to modify the current three fold repetition rule. Also, I don't think this is a defect.

I assume the variants.ini you describe is the configuration file for Variant-Stockfish. (It might be a good idea to mention that... As it is readers have no clue what it means.) Since that file specified perpetually checking is a loss, ("perpetualCheckIllegal = true") it can hardly be a surprise that Stockfish does not do it. It just means you have it play according to different rules than you describe in your article.

Well, I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand that. "It just means you have it play according to different rules than you describe in your article." What exactly does this sentence mean?

What I mean is that you have programmed Stockfish to count perpetual checking always as a loss. While the rules you specify here would count it in many cases as a win. So the variant.ini file you published here will not make Stockfish play Mansindam. Which also means that you have never played Mansindam against Stockfish.

And in a previous posting you tried to draw a conclusion about Mansindam from games against Stockfish. Namely that win by perpetually checking did not often occur. But when you have played zero games, the fact that something did not happen during those is no indication at all that this something happens infrequently. Even something that happens in 100% of the games would never happen in 0 games...

H. G. Muller // Umm, I played Mansindam on Fairy Stockfish over 30 times as AI vs AI. And all games so far have been decided by checkmate. (No case of winning by campmate, stalemate, or three fold repetition has been found yet.)

Did I misunderstand what you said?

Did I misunderstand what you said?

No, you misunderstood what you did. Because what you played with Stockfish was not Masindam, right? You played 30 games of another variant where perpetual checking is always a loss, and never a win.

???

It is impossible to deliver the same check three times in Mansindam. This is because three fold repetition includes perpetual check. This is Mansindam's rule, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

(Or maybe I'm not good at English, so I didn't understand your saying well. If that's okay with you, please explain to me in a bit more detail.)

It is impossible to deliver the same check three times in Mansindam. This is because three fold repetition includes perpetual check.

Not true. In the following diagram black (on move) will have to play 1... Rxc8, at which point a position arises for the first time (as it was a capture). After 2. Qa6+ Kb8 3. Qb6+ the only black evasion would be 3... Ka8. But this repeats the position after 1... Rxc8. So black is the first to repeat, and white is allowed to check three times by moving his Queen between a6 and b6. Because the third time he does it the black King is still on b8.

With Masindam rules black would have lost here, because he will either repeat too many times, or must stay in check. With the rules you let Stockfish play by, white would lose here, because he is perpetually checking.

H. G. Muller // So in your example, does it mean that Black lose is normal, but White loses with Mansindam's variants.ini?

What you would consider 'normal' I cannot say. I would say that 'normal' is FIDE rules, and that would mean a draw. But according to the rules described in the Mansindam article black would lose, while in the variant.ini (which you presumably used in the 30 games with Stockfish) white would indeed lose.

Another point is that you will never see losses by repetitions from engines, because engines are programmed to avoid losing. They would avoid an immediate loss at any cost. So the only thing that you could hope to see is some very bad moves it was forced to do to prevent a repetition.

H. G. Muller // Umm, then how do you think Mansindam's variants.ini definition should be modified while maintaining the rules?

I have never used Fairy Stockfish. But I suppose you would have to set the perpetualCheckIllegal parameter to false, or leave it out completely. Which it seems you have already done now in the published version.

H. G. Muller // Yep I fixed that

Added some pictures and text

The description of Knight's move was edited as follows :

-> Moves to the nearest square among squares that do not correspond to the same file, rank, and diagonal from its position.

This has been published. I have edited the text to improve the grammar and clarity. It could still be better, but is acceptable. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you very much, and thanks again for your kind reply!

I hope you have a nice day!

Some words have been corrected

• (e.g. Surrender -> Resignation)

And some pieces have been renamed to make them easier to read

• (e.g. 雲 ⇒ 云)

https://pychess-pr-657.herokuapp.com/

Mansindam has been temporarily added to Pychess!

All of Mansindam's original piece names have been decided !

I added the interactive diagram !

I'm thinking of making Masindam puzzles soon !

Manshindam can be played here !

https://pychess-mansindam.onrender.com/

I modified the images !

When implementing Mansindam on other sites, may I use the alfaerie piece icon?

I modified some description !

I am agonizing whether to create a separate page just for puzzles or to add puzzles to this page

I suppose it should depend on how many you want to add. A few illustrative puzzles would be appropriate here, but if you want to provide a large collection, it may be appropriate to put them on their own page.

Thanks for replying !

https://fairy-stockfish.github.io/nnue/

Mansindam NNUE is added !

Some texts are modified

Kanji icons are updated !

The author, Daphne Snowmoon, has updated this page.