[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
SMIRF still is an 8x8 and 10x8 multivariant engine and GUI at amateur level. Experiencing some problems when being executed at Windows XP 64 Bit I recompiled an actual version of SMIRF and made it downloadable from http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html. Thus SMIRF still will have its conceptual weaknesses during mating operations. Nevertheless some 10x8 fans might welcome the current version made available. Please report on still existing weaknesses of the GUI or the download link. SMIRF itself will not be improved, instead there will be a rewritten private engine Octopus.
Indeed,this is a known problem with Smirf. Because the underlying piece-value model is linear in the average piece mobility, the piece values become additive, and a the value of Q becomes that of R+B, and that of A that of B+N. For A this is more disastrously wrong than for Q, but trading Q for R+B is still quite bad (like blundering away a Pawn). For the short-range leapers I found a clear non-linearity in the relation between (maximum) number of target squares N and piece value V: V = (30+5/8*N)*N (centiPawn). The methodology of basing piece values on board-averaged mobilities seems flawed to me: it overestimates the impact of bad squares where the moblity is low. In practical play you avoid putting the piece on such squares. e.g. take a few thousand positions randomly chosen from grandmaster games, and count how many of those had a Knight on a corner square. It seems a safe bet that this will be FAR LESS than 4/64 = 6%, and in fact I would be really surprised if it is more than 0.6%. It would be interesting to observe the frequencies with which pieces visit each board square in grandmaster games, and determine how this correlates with the mobility of the piece.
I appreciate the 3 versions of SMIRF loaded with different CRC material values that you sent me for testing purposes. I realize compiling them was not a productive use of your time toward developing Octopus or creating future versions of SMIRF. So, I sincerely hate to complain. Internal Playtesting- Scharnagl http://www.symmetryperfect.com/pass Push the 'download now' button. I played one game of Embassy Chess (mirror) at 40 minutes per move. The white player was version 0 (standard) and the black player was version 2 (highest archbishop value). The black player won. However, the victory was not attributable to the white player valuing its archbishop too low in an exchange. Instead, it was attributable to the white player valuing its queen too low in an exchange. White traded its 1 queen for 1 knight + 1 rook belonging to black. This gave black a 3:2 advantage in supreme pieces which, over the course of the game, was reduced to a 1:0 advantage in supreme pieces which gave black the ability to out-position white in the endgame, gain material and win. The game was not even close or long ... ending in 53 moves. I have seen this happen many times before. Of course, with version 0 and version 2 having identical material values for the queen, rook and knight, it could have just an likely 'thrown the game away' to the other player. That is the reason I cannot continue playtesting with what you provided to me. Under the Nalls model (for example), there are 3 supreme piece(s) enhancements: the non color-bound enhancement, the non color-changed enhancement and the compound enhancement. In CRC, they total a 43.75% bonus for the archbishop above the material value of its components (the bishop and the knight), a 12.50% bonus for the chancellor above the material value of its components (the rook and the knight) and a 18.75% bonus for the queen above the material value of its components (the rook and the bishop). The entire purpose of the supreme piece(s) enhancements is to provide a measurably appropriate deterrent to trading any supreme pieces too lightly to your opponent thereby ending-up with a potentially game-losing disadvantage in the ratio of supreme pieces. The Muller model is similar in this respect. If I had to choose only ONE foundation, experimental or theoretical, for my model, then I would choose experimental without apprehension. Of course, I am allowed to use both. So, I do because I remain hopeful that eventually, thru relentless effort, my theory will attain a worthwhile condition (that has previously eluded it) whereby the theoretical and experimental foundations will become mutually reinforcing. I would characterize my position as regarding both the experimental and theoretical foundations as important (although I definitely consider the experimental foundation primary). I would characterize Muller's position as being that the experimental foundation is everything that matters and the theoretical foundation is just an unneeded crude, inaccurate approximation to experimental numbers decorated with arbitrary words and concepts. Maybe so? I would characterize Scharnagl's position as being that the theoretical foundation is supremely important as it must dictate and predict the optimum experimental numbers. [I agree that a great theory should be expected to do so.] Furthermore, the theory must be elegantly simple and intuitively accessible. [I consider this expectation unrealistic and impossible. Generally, the optimum material values for chess variants are too complex in their estimation-calculation to be reducible to simple formulae without sacrificing accuracy to an unacceptable extent.] Scharnagl: Please reconsider revising your CRC model even if doing so unavoidably renders your theory somewhat more complicated in its concepts and formulae? The playing strength of SMIRF (standard version) can probably be improved significantly by taking such steps.
Well, Sam, I am not that rich, so it would help somehow to have some minor contributions e.g. for to buy some more recent development tools and for to update my hardware from time to time. But it is more disturbing to experience people seeing no value in such software as long it is free. Thus freeware is devaluating the scene and does a bull's job to chess variant software. Making the entry version of SMIRF a donationware should have been signaling that message, but most of SMIRF's users nevertheless mixed that kind of releasing up with freeware. Another demotivating detail is, that though I have tried to publish all of my chess pages using both German and English languages, no (as far as I know) native English speaking chess page had been turned to become bilingual too by also supporting German, that way following my example. This makes me feel like a second class person. Therefore I have decided to no longer continue such an approach, instead I will merely use my German language, if I ever would relaunch my web site again. Thus developing Octopus out of SMIRF's bones is done rather slowly and privately. That would not exclude really interested people from contacting me or following the project, nevertheless I am ignoring the public, e.g. by chosing Mac OS X as development system, saying 'sorry' to MS Vista, and by redirecting my old site to a small German language blogging site. Reinhard.
I don't think the problem is a lack of interest in SMIRF, per se, but a lack of interest in Chess Variants in general. I have downloaded and played SMIRF; indeed, I use this program to help test and create mating positions with my 10x8 Capablanca variant.
Don't feel bad. I have worked hard making my own open source project. Have I gotten a single cent for this project? No.
- Sam
The world seems to be not interested in SMIRF's 8x8 and 10x8 concept. Regards, Reinhard.
The link to SMIRF is dead. A transition is underway that will take a long time from SMIRF for IBM-compatible computers running MS Windows to Octopus for Mac computers and OS. SMIRF > Octopus (in German) http://web.mac.com/rescharn/iWeb/Octopus/Blog/Blog.html The last version of SMIRF released was BC-168a. If you want it but missed your chance to download it, please send me an E-mail privately. I can send you the file. Please remember it is donationware- donations to its developer, Reinhard Scharnagl, are encouraged!
Hi Mats, let me explain, that my understanding of AI is NOT simulating anything but developing solutions genuine to machine. Intelligent behavior is not merely imitating. Now, how to support the SMIRF project: a) intellectually: by showing interest, writing comments, testing, giving constructive critic, mentioning the SMIRF project where it would make sense. There is no need to exceed intellectual limits, we all mostly are specialists, thus don't worry when there will be gaps, I don't either. b) financially: where fans like to use the SMIRF program, they should be aware, that there are costs for organizing and maintaining hard and software, e.g. actual development environments, and that it needs a lot of time, wherein no money could be earned. Thus it makes sense to those people to place some donations via paypal.
How can they support something they don't understand? I never took the courses in AI when I studied computer science, long ago. Had I done this, possibly, I could better understand your notions. It isn't exactly trivial what you're doing, neither the algorithmic notions, nor the underlying philosophy. It is the latter I have the most problems with. I think I am essentially a Platonist, thinking in terms of the invisible Forms of chess. The notion that algorithmic methods can fully simulate aspects of human intelligence in chessplaying is beyond me. Had it involved computational intelligence, and an iterative development or learning, then I could better understand the notion of an AI chessprogram. /Mats
Hi, Mats, beside of the fact, that the Windows distribution of SMIRF still is the only one and just has been updated (in the bonus version), it does not matter to me, how many people are using Smirf, but in contrast it does, how many are really supporting it. And, because of this number is nearly vanishing, I simply decided do migrate to Mac OS X because of software political reasons. Yesterday I have published on my web site my new model for calculating the average piece exchange values for various gaits, both: simplified and improved, at http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachansatz1_e.html. Reinhard.
Well, migrating into Mac OS is migrating into oblivion. How many chess enthusiasts use Mac? Less that one per thousand, I'd guess. /Mats
Hi Mats, one of my first goals is to make SMIRF play self-containedly especially through the opening stage. I am happy, that this works even for randomized starting positions half-way sufficiently. To manipulate the opening behaviour to gain more success simply by adding some quirks instead of modifying the global model concept will destroy the chance of finding an abstract and consistent base model. Still I am e.g. not fully satisfied with my average piece value model, and the evaluation function is three times as slow as necessary. Nevertheless I have thoughts to distribute a predefined amount of evaluation to be randomizedly disposed in chosing second class moves during the beginning to gain a less determinated play at fixed opening arrays. Actually I still recommend to play Chess960 or 10x8 CRC to have more diversified game experiences.
Smirf has a fondness of developing the knights immediately. The resultant positions are often classic in character. A classical style implies moving one pawn two steps and developing the pieces fast. This is sometimes employed as a defence method with black. But practice has shown that white's winning chances, should he employ this strategy, are scarce. At least as white, Smirf should more often try to move two pawns in the centre immediately, e.g. c4, and d4. Instead he often blocks the c-pawn. This isn't necessarily bad, but it reduces the strategical possibilities immensely. The c-pawn, both with white and black, is of immense strategical import. Even if black blocks it, typically the knight will soon be removed and the the c-pawn pushed, like in Ruy Lopez. The king fianchetto is also typical of modern opening strategy. I think that the opening play is the greatest problem, when opening books aren't used. A more modern style would increase Smirf's playing strength very much, and, also, that it doesn't try to win (or hold on to) a pawn in the early opening, but, rather, that it could even forfeit a pawn. A possible way of reducing the knight moves could be to randomize the first move. /Mats
Well, then, please add Mastodon Chess (8x10) instead so we get
a big board variant of prominence.
/Mats
a big board variant of prominence.
/Mats
Hi Mats, a 10x10 board exceeds my actually used numeric base structures. Thus I do not yet support such big boards. 9x9 boards would be possible with some restrictions, but to support e.g. Shogi is beside of my current intentions. If I would ever implement a second engine line, that probably would support something like the Go game. Reinhard.
A missing item in your future design elements:
i) 10x10 board (e.g., Grand Chess, which is popular)
/Mats
i) 10x10 board (e.g., Grand Chess, which is popular)
/Mats
The future of SMIRF: well, in the meantime there have been some questions from different sides, what will be with SMIRF. First, I am about to migrate it to the Mac OS X. That is, because I am angry about MS Vista and its unsufficient driver set (especially 64 Bit), its bad behaviour against programmers and its several backdoors for government, police or secret service investigations targeting every file on a Vista system (as I prosume). In contrast Mac OS X is again going to create a homegeneous 64 Bit user landscape starting with coming OS X Leopard version. SMIRF will become 64 Bit then. There will be no big speed step by that, because SMIRF is no a bitboard based program. But it will use the grown register set, and it will then benefit from any compiler optimization improvement. I remember days, where I investigated to have an ARM RISC processor based solution, but there are currently no fast desktop systems or sponsors, which would provide me with such a development environment. Thus I stay on Intel/AMD64 based hardware (unfortunately also without any sponsor yet). SMIRF will not be merely migrated to Mac OS X. I intend to have a lot of new design elements: a) redesign the internal data structure and caching logic b) rewrite the position detail evaluation function (which is still the first slow draft, may be a 200% speed up then) c) support additionally also an additional piece (General = N+B+R) d) support blocked squares (to customize the playable square zone) e) build in prompting (instead of badly working permanent brain) f) attempt to implement multithreaded multiprocessor usage g) create a separated unit for to contain move logic and pgn file maintenance beside of the GUI h) attempt to have a UCI protocol based GUI That is a huge project and will need a remarkable amount of my free time. So do not wait for a finished Mac OS X version in the near future. May be some of then made progresses will be reimplemented into the working Windows 32 Bit solution, but from now on possible updates would only be published for the donators' bonus version. Reinhard.
How much faster do you estimate that SMIRF will run on RISC-architecture, Mac hardware and OS than CISC-architecture, IBM-compatible hardware with MS Windows?
Smirf clearly improves its positional play when given more time. This is unusual. But it has a rather passive style of play. Another thought: different alternative variants can also be achieved by keeping the same pieces but introduce the Gustavian board ( http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/gustaviii.htm ). S Trenholme did this in Capablanca Gustavian (zrf) which can be downloaded from yahoo (chess variants). It is an interesting concept. The smaller board might affect the unruly Archbishops and Chancellors so that they are somewhat neutralized. /Mats
To uncover the *laws* underlying any subject matter is the gist of the scientific paradigm. I am surprised that there are people who think differently, which is interesting, of course. Another thing: there are so many chess variants on this site that are better than those Capablanca variants, with their rather brutal pieces. Personally I even prefer the Amazon to the Archbishop and Chancellor. The Amazon is easier to handle, and it must hide to all other pieces, so the games are easier to predict. /Mats
Hi Mats, please have a look on that, what you have said. You are using such names like 'central squares' or 'established chess laws'. But that kind of arguing is just the problem. Why are central squares that important? Where is the center in different chess960 games, where the king himself might be decentralized? By that you learn, that such categories are derived from more essential but abstract things. Another more transparent example are the average piece exchange values: where do those traditional values come from? What is with that at different variants? At my webpage you will find a simple theory to derive such values even for unusual piece types or board sizes. As I tried to tell you, I am not interested in that kind of chess knowledge, where it at least leads to a simple implementing of a copycat behaviour. If you want to create an effective and INTELLIGENT chess program, you first have to UNDERSTAND the basics of chess, not to imitate the so called chess knowledge, which is moreover differing enormously depending on which chess master you will ask. Then you will have to TRANSLATE it into the world and language of a CPU. Today there are a lot of effective but mostly huge chess programs. So there is no urgent need for to write another one. But on the other side there are very few intelligently working approaches using instead very restricted means. I am arguing for to have computer chess program tournaments with LIMITED means, especially targeting the persistant storage size including the program executeable. They should be bound to a special upper bound. And it should be measured in a packed form e.g. as RAR for to skip inner redundancies as generated depending of the selected computer language and to avoid the temptation to undergo any limits by including packed knowledge.
Of course, I did not mean 'stupid looking up', like opening books and endgame tables. I did not mean concrete knowledge. What I had in view are the established *chess laws*. For instance, in the opening you must direct attention to the centre. There are two methods, either a direct fight for the central squares, or an initial forfeiture followed by an immediate undermining of the points of support. Flank operations must not begin before the situation in the centre is clarified. In the endgame the king must become active, and take heed of opposition, etc., etc. In my own weak little DOS program ( http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/blindc.htm ) there is no book knowledge, either. But it tries to control the centre, nevertheless. And it seems to play the openings rather well, without opening book. Facts are that programmers are reluctant to teach the programs this kind of knowledge. Instead they want to create as effective algorithms as possible, so that the correct move is reached anyway. This creates a form of chess that is lacking in variance. There are very many ways of handling a position, provided that you follow the chess laws. If you don't follow the chess laws, but only calculate, then the program will decide for only one possibility. This is a faulty conclusion while there are other moves that are just as good. In this sense, I'm afraid, this project is similar to other chess software solutions in that you put to much trust in the calculative capability of the program. I don't see why abstract knowledge cannot be combined with an AI approach. /Mats
Hi Mats, you are arguing for a fast creating of a good chess playing program. A lot of programmers act like that. They establish a lot of methods to copycat human behavior and to replace intelligence by always growing looking up tables, calling this e.g. position learning. (Moreover they copycat each other among some few creative authors of OpenSource projects.) But that is not at all the kind of learning which deserves that name, instead it is a continued replacing of intelligence (which is proving itself by good results at RESTRICTED means) by stupid looking up. I do not claim, that that common modus operandi would not gain success, in chess it created programs better playing than human masters, and checkers seems to be solved by that. But that method might fail at more complex games like already 10x8 chess or anyway at the 19x19 go game, because it is an anti-intelligent approach. Regard the SMIRF project as an intermediate drosophila for to find methods to handle the go game much later using the made experiences.
Please let me explain another way ... The purpose of SMIRF is to fairly play ALL 960 FRC starting positions and ALL 12,118 CRC starting positions equally and extraordinarily well. Obviously, it would be impossible to generate high-quality opening books of adequate depth and width for all of these 1000's of games within a survivable time. So, to attempt such a project is not even being realistically considered. Moreover, some people are skeptical that any of the starting positions with FRC pieces upon the 8x8 board or CRC pieces upon the 10x8 board are at all or significantly superior compared to other unknown permutations. In other words, they do not consider Chess any better than the other 959 FRC variants nor do they consider any of the 2 dozen CRC variants given names by their inventors any better than the other 12,000+ CRC variants. [Personally, I think otherwise that Chess & Opti Chess are the best FRC & CRC games, respectively. In the latter case, I admittedly lack impersonal objectivity.] In my playtesting experience, SMIRF is vastly better than merely 'an impractical experiment that plays Chess poorly' as you describe it (more or less). You are missing the point. You obviously do not fully understand that there is a strong correlation between the quality of moves generated by a pure search intelligence program (such as SMIRF) and the time, plies or positions that must be invested to achieve worthwhile results. When testing one program against another or testing one set of material values for pieces against another using the same program, I NEVER use a time per move of less than 1 hour ... running a dual-CPU (2.4 Ghz per CPU) server. I regard quickly-obtained results as random, too replete with bad moves and analytically uninteresting (since a sub-genius such as I could have won the game playing either side). Given reasonable conditions, SMIRF & ChessV make moves well beyond my capacity as a player. By comparison, the Zillions Of Games program makes bad moves even when given 24 hours per move or more.
If you had a way of storing the program's experiences of different positions, then I would understand your concept (i.e. a learning file). But to build hundreds of years of collected understanding into wholly abstract algorithms, that I don't believe in. Chess is too deep a game for that. Possibly it would work with gomoku, but not chess. Nevertheless, it's an interesting experiment. I wish you good luck. /Mats
Hi Mats! It seems necessary to explain something of SMIRF's concept. This program is designed to gain a maximum output at a minimum input. You might have noticed, that SMIRF's single multivariant engine is sized only about 60K (72K for the bonus version). Its intention is to reach success WITHOUT implemented chess knowledge (during the first stages of its development). Instead the goal is to create something like a machine intelligence REPRODUCING human behavior NOT by design but maybe only by chance. If you notice a less successful behavior (as you have reported) the solution of this thus would not be to implement chess knowledge as done in a lot of other chess programs, but to make the inner functions more appropriate, on what I am always working. There is nearly nothing less intelligent (despite of being successful) as to have a lot of looking up knowledge inside of a program. Nevertheless SMIRF should be able to handle sufficiently such things like Zugzwang, passed pawns and opposition by its own means.
Reinhard, I used the latest downloadable version. All I say is that there should be knowledge built in so that it takes charge of the centre in the opening. Likewise, in pawn endgames there must be knowledge about the opposition. If there is no such knowledge, then all games are strategically lost. Of course, Smirf is likely to win anyway because it is so strong, but chess programmers must learn to honour the laws of chess. The game example I gave turns the stomach of a cunning chessplayer. It's like a musician who must bear to listen to false play. It is an interesting AI project, but I don't think you can do without knowledge. Chess programmers tend to see chess as an algorithmic experiment, and they disregard the laws of chess, expecting the program to find the best move unaided by knowledge worked out during the centuries. If the programs have knowledge then 10s/move on a 1.6 GHz machine is clearly good enough. Capablanca said that he counted one move forwards, but he had an immense knowledge. /Mats
Hi Mats, it is not clear, which version of SMIRF you are using. I found here a differing better behaviour. Nevertheless SMIRF was not intended to play well in Blitz (though it mostly plays acceptable), it has been designed to think rather positionally, thus it needs some thinking time to create really good moves. It should make sense to discuss such questions to games in different chess fora or by private mail. Additionally SMIRF is able to create game PGN files, which are more recommended to be used in postings, because they could be marked, copied and pasted directly into SMIRF to be replayed. Regards, Reinhard.
Reinhard, in the following game played between Smirf as white and Zillions as black (1.6 GHz, 10s/move), Smirf moves both his flank pawns, wholly without motivation, and put his bishop ahead of a centre pawn on its initial position. This kind of play is strategically indefensible. In games against humans the game is strategically lost, even after only one or two of these positional blunders. It sometimes adopts this style of play also in normal chess. On the other hand, it is easy to create a tenable position as white. Always move (1) the kingpawn one step, (2) the queenpawn two steps, and (3) the queenbishop-pawn two steps. This position is good regardless what black does, and white can always play for a win. As black one can always make the steps (1) and (2) and have a good position, regardless of white's moves. In almost all cases one can also make (3). These moves could be rewarded in Smirf regardless of variant. Then Smirf will always begin with a strategically tenable opening, until an opening book is developed. /Mats (for Zillions I used my rules file http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/capablanca.htm ) Zillions Save Game File Version 0.02 HCC RulesFile=CAPABL~1.ZRF VariantName=Bird's Chess 1. Knight i1 - h3 1. Pawn d7 - d6 2. Knight b1 - c3 2. Pawn f7 - f6 Black H M1 3. Pawn d2 - d3 White H M2 3. Pawn g7 - g5 Black H M3 4. Bishop c1 - e3 4. Pawn c7 - c5 Black H M4 5. Pawn g2 - g3 5. Knight i8 - h6 6. Bishop h1 - d5 6. Pawn e7 - e6 7. Bishop d5 - e4 7. Knight h6 - f5 8. Bishop e4 x f5 8. Pawn e6 x f5 9. Pawn j2 - j4 9. Bishop h8 - g7 10. Pawn a2 - a4 10. Knight b8 - c6 11. Pawn j4 - j5 11. Pawn g5 - g4 12. Knight h3 - f4 12. Chancellor d8 - d7 13. Pawn j5 - j6 13. aRook j8 - i8 = Rook 14. Pawn j6 x i7 14. Rook i8 x i7 15. Pawn h2 - h3 15. Knight c6 - d4 16. aQueen e1 - d2 flip Z6 = Queen on d2 16. Pawn h7 - h6 17. Knight c3 - d5 17. Pawn g4 x h3 18. Pawn i2 x h3 18. Pawn b7 - b6 19. Bishop e3 x d4 19. Pawn c5 x d4 20. Queen d2 - b4 20. Bishop c8 - b7 21. Queen b4 x d4 21. aRook a8 - c8 = Rook 22. Chancellor d1 - e3 22. Bishop b7 x d5 23. Knight f4 x d5 23. aQueen e8 x e3 = Queen 24. Knight d5 x e3 24. Archbishop g8 - e6 25. Queen d4 - h4 25. Archbishop e6 - g5 26. Queen h4 - h5 26. Bishop g7 - h8 27. Archbishop g1 - f3 27. Bishop h8 - g7 28. Archbishop f3 - d4 28. Rook c8 - c5 29. Pawn b2 - b4 29. Rook c5 - e5 30. Knight e3 - c4 30. Rook e5 - d5 31. Archbishop d4 - c6 31. Chancellor d7 - c7 32. Pawn b4 - b5 32. Archbishop g5 - i3 33. Queen h5 x j7 33. Rook i7 x j7 34. aRook j1 x j7 = Rook 34. Archbishop i3 - h2 35. King f1 - e1 @ e1 0 0 35. King f8 - g8 @ g8 0 0 36. Pawn d3 - d4 36. Chancellor c7 x c6 37. Pawn b5 x c6 37. Rook d5 x d4 38. Knight c4 - e3 38. Rook d4 - e4 39. aRook a1 - a3 = Rook 39. Rook e4 - e5 40. Rook a3 - c3 40. Rook e5 - e8 41. Pawn c6 - c7 41. Rook e8 - c8 42. Knight e3 x f5 42. Bishop g7 - f8 43. Knight f5 - e7 43. Bishop f8 x e7 44. Rook j7 - j8 44. King g8 - f7 @ f7 0 0 45. Rook j8 x c8 45. Archbishop h2 - i1
Hi Mats! I do not know to wich variant you are referring. SMIRF actually does not use any opening library even for established starting arrays, to not hide possible weaknesses during opening, which should be covered by an improved evaluation function, which in SMIRF is not stage depending but constant during the whole game. Regarding that aspect SMIRF already is handling openings not badly, so in your case it would be recommended to post me such a critizised example privately. To your prior suggestion to include some special variant in SMIRF: I am about to rewrite the whole SMIRF project and to migrate it to Mac OS X. I will remember such proposals and see then, what could be done. At the first sight your variant is matching the FullChess criteria to be included. Regards, Reinhard.
Smirf is a strong program, and the graphics is attractive. However, it would benefit greatly from moving the centre pawns two steps forwards, instead of moving the flank pawns two steps. Flank operations should begin only after the situation in the centre is clarified. Moving a flank pawn two steps weakens the position much more than just moving it one step, especially if it is the kingside flank pawn. /Mats
Indeed, Derek, there is actually only a twin of chessbox.de at 10x8.net. I plan to build a site dedicated to 10x8 chess programming and a coming Mac OS X based successor of SMIRF named 'CapTen' for Capablanca and 10x8.
SMIRF http://www.10x8.net The new SMIRF pages are up and running as well. This is a mirror web site to the old SMIRF pages.
Reinhard, please consider adding Chess256 to Smirf. It is rather easy to implement, and it is a good training concept for 'orthodox' chess players who will have no help from opening theory from the first move, while the positions are very similar to normal chess. http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/randompawn.htm My BlindChess can already play Chess256, but its a rather weak DOS program. But it's good for testing Chess256. http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/blindc.htm /Mats
Excellent! I'm glad that this fine program is available again. I hope you continue to provide the current Windows version even as new versions develop. I must ask... Why change development to OS X? Mac computers can run Windows programs! They already can run your program (I think.) Why make SMIRF less useful by converting it?
SMIRF pages at http://www.chessbox.de are online again. Nevertheless SMIRF is migrating to Mac OS X.
Hi Greg, people who know me, nevertheless could keep contact e.g. via email. I also think it over to redesign a new homesite later at www.10x8.net (allready working empty) where you also can use my new email address prefixed by ReScharn. Regards, Reinhard.
I am very sorry to hear that you have had problems. Unfortunately, this is common on the Internet. It is sad that people who work hard on something, and share it for free, must be repaid with abuse. You should know that there are many people who do appreciate what you have done and who respect your accomplishments. I hope that you will reconsider and make this fine program available again. Your work *is* appreciated by most people, even if there exists the occasional person who does not (probably because of their own commercial interests.)
Because of a vanishing feed back and an increasing rate of being insulted, I decided to leave the scene for a while. I will work for a new version of SMIRF for Mac OS X during the next time and may return then. Regards, Reinhard.
Aside from a brief, cryptic note left by Reinhard Scharnagl at this web site, I have no idea why ChessBox & SMIRF have disappeared. Does anyone really know anything about this mystery? ChessBox http://www.chessbox.de
Hi, I have a suggestion for a variant to be added, If SMIRF was able to play Alice Chess it would probably be the only program (besides Zillions of Games) to play the variant. There isn't even any sites on the net to play it live. There can be two options to show the board : either as two seperate board besides each other, or both boards superimposed on each other, with board B pieces up-side-down or something. -- Another thing: I've noticed a problem with modern castling in the program. Whan I put a random starting position in a 10x8 board with modern castling (I believe it is called Orthodox Castling by Chess480 inventor, whatever ..) the king on the file h or i can't castle with the rook on his right, and so is the case on the a-side of the board. As I unserstand this castling, the king should go to the corner square and the rook placed next to him. And I believe a 'free castling' option would make trying out variants which don't exist (like Grotesque Chess) easier. The castling movement can be notated like O-g for example if the king ended up on the g file, or O-h. Thank you for reading, Yours, Sibahi
I never even saw those black dots in any game that index the pieces involved in castling because I chose a black border (for my board). Besides, SMIRF cannot enable castling with the strange opening setup used in Corner Chess 8 x 8 even as the symbol for a castling option must exist within the X-FEN string. Nevermind! All is well.
Hi Derek, beside of the fact, that Corner Chess is a 8x8 setup option within SMIRF, there is no need for to have a separate no-castling option. Because one could switch into the edit mode and deactivate any castling potential (shown by special marker dots) simply by clicking at the matching file letters of involved rooks. Activating of castlings is done the same way. Regards, Reinhard.
This is a request for future versions of SMIRF. A 4th castling option would be useful occasionally: no castling. Corner Chess 8 x 8, my first (and worst) chess variant ever invented is a game where only standard chess pieces are used in which castling is totally unnecessary. [The king is very well protected at the opening setup.] Corner Chess 8 x 8 http://play.chessvariants.org/erf/CornerCh.html
Hi Derek, your proposal will not be forgotten, but it has to wait until there would be some more serious donations from other people. Indeed I worked on that idea already conceptually. But there are some obstacles. E.g. the row nr could be encoded as a marked bit within a single byte, but only as long as using not more than 8 rows. So a 10x10 board would qualify a lot of procedures as no longer usable then and would demand for an appropriate rewrite of a lot of code. Additionally I am still missing a matching 10x10 variant compatibly including the rules of traditional chess.
This is request for future versions of SMIRF. I notice that there are some games played upon the 10H x 10W board that are related to Capablanca Chess (as evident by the fact that they are played using all or most of the same pieces). If I am correct in presuming that CRC is one of your favorite games, then you may find the inclusion of this 3rd board size desirable. You can be sure that players who use your program would find it desirable.
Hi Derek, SMIRF currently is designed to cover 8x8 and 10x8 variants, which somehow compatibly are including traditional chess as a sort of superset. Nonetheless SMIRF has included some additional features like supporting some different kinds of castling or the absence of Chancellors in Janus Chess. Thus supporting more piece types actually is not intended. Nevertheless it is thinkable to double the supported gaits from 8 piece types to 16 in a follow-up version of SMIRF. But this will not be in the nearest future. P.S.: not to forget: the future of SMIRF depends on voluntary donations.
This is a request for future versions of SMIRF. It relates to the aforementioned topic (under CRC) of the advantage of white. Originally, pawns did not have the option to make a first move consisting of 2-spaces forward (as well as 1-space forward). Of course, there are historic chess variants upon rectangular boards which require original pawns to be used instead of modern pawns. So, for this single reason, some of these games cannot presently be played using SMIRF. In the chess computer age, it has been proven that the 2-space forward move of pawns amplifies the first-move-of-the-game advantage (for white) in chess and many related games. Therefore, those modern inventors (of games similar to chess) who actually care about their games being fair and stable would be wise to use original pawns, instead. I predict some will. Accordingly, it would be desirable for the SMIRF program to accommodate these 2 sub-types of pawns within the piece sets available for use in games played upon 8H x 8W or 8H x 10W boards.
49 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.