Uhm, I wasn't looking for a logical proof or something, but I will restate my question:
I have the feeling that the archbishop as compared to the bishop has gained a lot in power, while the chancelour as compared with the rook has gained less power. (the weakness of one-colour-squares of the bishop is neutralized, more combi-attacks are possible (?))
Is my feeling correct that generally speaking the three pieces (queen, archbishop, chanselour) have about the same strenght?

Nobody knows.........
And in fact your question is not well defined so actually nobody can't answer..........

Is it true that the "horsepart" and the "bishoppart" of the archbishop work better together than the "horsepart" and the "rookpart" of the chancelour?

I don't understand what you are saying......
I just said to play Gothic Chess legally. Not ignoring the patent........We don't have to invent new games that are the same with G.C without breaking the patent, we just have to play Gothic Chess......!

Chessmaster1000: but please without any worry about any sh* laws or patents please.

Or just play Gothic Chess........

Stormerne: Or place the pieces in columns A, B, I, & J (then rotate the board 90 degrees).

First all let me say I have no axe to grind either way with regard to Gothic Chess or its inventor. However, I see a whole load of people who like to play the game here and I see the possibility of that being in jeopardy. So here's a suggestion. I hope it's seen as a constructive one by all concerned. It's certainly meant that way...

I've looked through Ed's patent and it's very specific about the way the pieces are arranged and which files they're on. Obviously this is very important to the dynamics of the game vis-a-vis Capablanca Chess. However, because the piece placement is stated so specifically (e.g. "the chancellors are located at e1, e8 respectively"), other arrangements of the pieces would seem to me not to infringe the patent.

However, what piece placement could be different enough to steer clear of the patent but still retain the desired characteristics of Gothic Chess? Simple. All we need to do is use a mirror image piece placement! The board is numbered and lettered in the normal way with a1 in white's left hand corner but now his king is at e1 not f1, his queen is at g1 not d1, his chancellor is at f1 not e1 and his archbishop is at d1 not g1.

Now this is not Gothic Chess as defined in the patent. And players would have to get used to playing with the king and queen sides swapped over, but people do seem very versatile here! And it'll need a new name (like Storm Chess of course! ) and a small amount of reprogramming from the Fencer and co. But surely everyone would then be happy?

I checked. It seems that Janusschach makes it possible to play Janus chess, Fisher random chess (chess 960) and standard chess but no gothic chess.

Caissus: (From Feb 15th) www.janusschach.de, I think. I have to check it. I am not sure about 4 times, as I have not read it in a while, but more than once.

I believe that Ed Trice is working on this right now. I don't think that it can be played in Realtime yet (as far as I know). I believe that when this is completed it will be available through http://www.gothicchess.org/

Is this someone can indicate to me if there is an Internet site which
makes it possible to play Gothic chess on line (in real time, no turn-based).

A little but not on KOG.

Ughaibu: I didn't know you like betting at the ponies. Did you lose any money?

Finished 8th @ 33-1.

There's a horse named King Of Gothland running in the 4:50 at Sandown, tipped by the Guardian.

mahavrilla: As for finding a Gothic Chess set, I believe you can still purchase a nice high-impact plastic set with a rubber-matted foam board at www.gothicchess.org

I purchased one a few years back when Gothic was just getting started and have really enjoyed my set.

Walter Montego: Or buy two sets and have lots of extra pieces to play the various games.

mahavrilla: You can get a Grand Chess set and use it for Janus Chess, though you might ask them to send you two extra Cardinals with your order. You'll have to get your own 10 X 8 or cover two rows of their 10 X 10 board. This is something I'm thinking of doing myself. Grand Chess sounds like it'd be a fun game to play too. They used to have a site for it. The game was made up in the 1970's. Perhaps a browse of the Chess Variants page is in order, eh? They used to have the link to the creator's site and his ordering information with pictures of some nice looking sets. They might be able to help you out for the 8 X 10 board, too. Grand Chess uses the same exact pieces as Gothic Chess and the design of the pieces themselves is one I like. They use the names Cardinal and Marshall for the Archbishop and Chancellor. I like how they incorporated the Knights into the pieces and it makes them easy to tell apart and also remember how they move. Their design for the Cardinal would make a good looking piece for the Januses, but they'd need to supply you with one extra of each color to play Janus Chess with their set.

Trice claims he has a contract with Hasbro. They should, allegedly, start selling Gothic Chess sets this summer.

Does anyone know here where to purchase a wooden Janus chess set? I would also like to purchase a wooden Gothic chess set. Any suggestions? I am starting to think that I am going to have to make my own.

I prefer Janus. I think Janus is more tactic than Gothic and i think the strategy of chess can be extended to janus in a natural way.

Thanks for all the comments.

mahavrilla: I believe that tempered capablanca chess appears to have
a higher potential than janus ... but the majority of games here doesn't
reflect all the strategic options properly, coffeehouse style mainly. ~*~

fariborz2: Chess is much more different from Janus than Janus is from Goth. And Leko is among the world's best in both. I don't think it would be hard for him to do well in Goth.

Isn't a R+N piece a big difference?

chessmec: Fencer is going to merge the boards soon, I was just getting a head start. They're not that different that Leko would be a novice in Goth, I imagine!

mahavrilla: "Janus-Peter Leko being a Janus 4 time world champion"

Where have you found theses informations?

redsales: (leko) - is he now gothic chess player or just wrong board?

ughaibu: he has excellent combinational vision.

Is Leko known for exciting play?

I posted at the Gothic board as well. Could someone please tell me the major differences between Janus and Gothic? I know about the different pieces and castling rules, but what is the general consensus as to which is a more exciting game? I know that a lot of GMs play Janus-Peter Leko being a Janus 4 time world champion. Do any GMs play Gothic? My personal opinion is that Gothic offers more exciting play from having the chancellor. Any comments anybody?

Could someone please tell me the major differences between Janus and Gothic? I know about the different pieces and castling rules, but what is the general consensus as to which is a more exciting game? I know that a lot of GMs play Janus-Peter Leko being a Janus 4 time world champion. Do any GMs play Gothic? My personal opinion is that Gothic offers more exciting play from having the chancellor. Any comments anybody?

I'm quite free and liberal with whatever anyone wants to say about any subject on this discussion board whether or not the post is on subject or topic, but please try and succeed in avoiding profanites in your posts. I won't ban or hide you for using cuss words unless it is continuous and flagrant, but I will send you a message when I notice it or am sent a message that you've used them, or I'll modify your post and put an asterisk to change the word without changing your post too much. I don't want to do that, nor do I feel I should need too. Hey, I can cuss and swear with the best of them, but I refrain from doing so. Say what you want, be nasty if you desire, but do not use any of the FCC prohibited swear words on this open to the public discussion board. *hit is one of them. You all probably know the other six. If in doubt, be creative and use a different phrase or word. Civility won't kill you, and believe it or not, nice words can be quite devastating at times.

One buck to stop the bickering - I'll pay it, send me the bill. As for Ed and Fencer; that is there private fight to own, not ours. I imagine that we are all here to play Gothic Chess and not to bicker about a patent (you could always go to cowplay to do that if it's up your alley).
I know Ed and Fencer have had their disputes and lots of things have happened behind close doors, however the game itself is a very appealing game. I personally have taken a strong interest in this game and have spent many hours studying it, you could say that it is my new hobby. To lose Gothic Chess hear I feel would be a poor choice on Fencer's part. I don't know what can be siad for Ed's behaviour because I'm not in a position to speak of it. If fencer finds something wrong regarding Ed's behaviour then perhaps discipline is order for the member - NOT THE GAME! This is my stand point on that and I will defend Gothic Chess to stay at this site. As for Ed, he can defend himself because he can speak to what he has said and what has been said behind close doors.
I'm not here to be a *hit disturber, I just feel that the game itself should not be on trial here.

If we look at the original INPADOC application listing you can check the legal status and you will find that the code give is PRS 18. The text of such code gives different reasons and we cannot keep guessing. Mr. Trice and his legal representative in Europe are the only ones who know. The point in this is that the European patent has not yet been awarded.

The patent in the USA is available at the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office. That patent's legal status is "awarded" and it was reviewed by two examiners.

In fairness to Mr. Trice, regardless of how much some people dislike the fact that the patent exists, he is not the first person to patent a chess variant. The examiners of his patent in the US saw enough originality and merit to award the patent to him.

As I mentioned below, member states of the WTO are suppossed to respect the patents under the TRIPS agreement. There is also a Patent Law Treaty which seeks to harmonize patent law across members of the WTO that have agreed to the treaty.

Of course, all these international treaties and agreements are useless unless countries make specific provisions in their own laws to enforce patent rights given in others countries. This leaves many grey areas in the law because at this time enforcement is soft. For example, the Gothic chess patent is protected in the USA. Does that mean that it is protected outside the USA? What about a website that offers the game worldwide? Maybe the website breaks the law in the USA, but what about other countries? These are issues that only judges in courts of law can resolve.

I mention these laws and agreements because I really like this website and the last thing I want to see is Fencer get into trouble and having him spend his money in legal fees. He already suffers enough with players opening multiple Pawn accounts or players not getting enough Rook memberships.

Many of players enjoy Gothic chess and many players want to see the game stay here. However, for Fencer having to deal with all the bickering and arguing is tiring too. I suggest we let the matter rest. Mr. Trice has a patent in the USA and while the patent is there, it is for him to decide what he does with it. It is also for Fencer to decide what he keeps in Brain King.

If some people are sad to see Gothic chess go, remember that there is about 50 other games you can play, plus other variants that Fencer could introduce in the future.

Walter Montego: Note that I'm not saying that Ed lies. I see only these two options, nothing else. He either has the patent or doesn't have the patent. Either the registers are wrong or Trice lies. No third way.

Trice PMed me last night that he would send the respective documents to Fencer if Fencer asked him to do so. That's the situation how it is now. I know how uncomfortable the correspondence with Ed Trice is for Filip so let's wait how everything is going to end up.

Pedro Martínez: Fair enough. Since I've banned him from this discussion board, he'll have to use the private message system to get the information to one of us, or the someone that's been tipping him off from his fellowships about the carrying-ons of this board can get the information from him and post it here.

I think your option 1) makes the most sense. If option 2) was the case, he'd surely whip it out for Fencer to see and back up his claims upon this site.
There might be another explanation to fit this scenario too, so I shall just wait until I see for myself whom to believe. If it is your option 2) or another explanation I would like you to modify your post and make mention of the fact that you are wrong about option 1).

Walter Montego: I feel that if you went to Geneva now and applied for an international patent for Gothic Chess today, you should be successful. There are no signs whatsoever there would be any patent in force for the EU region for Gothic Chess.

I think Trice either didn't apply for the examination of his application according to A.94(2) EPC or he didn't pay the fee connected with it.

Trice though claims he has been awarded the patent. There are two possibilities now:

1. Edward A. Trice lies.
2. Both WIPO and EPO on-line registers that are updated every day are wrong and they do not include Trice's patent, which was, in fact, awarded.

There is only one way out of this: Trice has to show some evidence that his patent exists.

Pedro Martínez: What does all that mean? Is there no patent for Gothic Chess in Europe? Is it because fees weren't paid, or because it was denied? Or some other reason? Does that mean a European company can market the game in Europe without paying licensing fees to Ed?

Article 94 of the European Patent Convention:

"1) The European Patent Office shall examine, on written request, whether a European patent application and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of this Convention.



(2)63 A request for examination may be filed by the applicant up to the end of six months after the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report. The request shall not be deemed to be filed until after the examination fee has been paid. The request may not be withdrawn.



(3) If no request for examination has been filed by the end of the period referred to in paragraph 2, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn"

Application withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn
Communication, that the application is deemed to be withdrawn
date dispatch/legal effect date 26-06-2003/05-03-2003 [2003/49]
Reason A.94(3)

Does anyone know what reason A.94(3) is? I also searched through the event history link and found a lot of deletions and expiration messages. It would appear that the application was denied or withdrawn in 2003.

Pedro Martínez: yes in the usa. but the usa is a strange country. in europe there is another way, not such silly, all commercial ...
but sometimes i think the majority of us-americans is thumb ... :-(

I disagree. I think it's too much when you consider all the strings attached to it.

Someday I'll understand the patent business or this will be resolved in a way that I understand. I still do not see how a game that is over one hundred years old can be patented. Changing the starting places of three pieces and leaving all the rules the same is certainly no new game as far as I can see. It be like switching the Knights and Bishops in regular Chess and patenting that version of Chess.

If you're right redsales about just changing the rules or renaming the game, Fencer could just start all games as Bird's Chess and then have forced moves similar to how some Checker tournaments are done until the set looks like Gothic Chess and then allow the players to move as they wish. I believe I posted something like this idea a few months back. Depending on where the Chancellor/Marshall and Archbishop/Cardinal are initially set up in Bird's Chess you could arrive at the Gothic Chess set up in five to seven moves if I remember right. IF the players wanted to play the original Bird's Chess they could just start the game without the inforced moves.

chessmec: Really, if you lived in the US and made a 10x8 board and the gothic chess pieces of wood and sold it to your grandmother for ten bucks, telling her how to play it, you would be in breach with the patent.

redsales: Ed was great to make GC popular and he is developing a great program (in which i am not interested because i just want to play)
and it is eds right to make money with it. but if he tries it in such a way he will not help to popularize GC.
and maybe ed shoud think about it: europe is not the usa

Pedro Martínez: you mean to protect this gothic chess rules? LOL! Really?

chessmec: Well, according to the US Patent Office, Ed Trice was the first one to place the pieces on that board in that configuration and call it Gothic Chess. I'm sure that the configuration must've been stumbled upon by someone else before, but Trice was the first to claim the patent and the name. Not only that, he formed the federation, world computer championships, etc. I know how you feel. I'm very ambivalent about the whole thing.

I should have the right too choose a name for that

chessmec: I'm afraid he can.