Dear CC,

I tried your link, "game#98589," and got an error msg:

HTTP ERROR: 404 Not Found

RequestURI=/game/archievedgame

Powered by Jetty://

-Fx

I don't think I would trade my A for 2N + 1.5P.

Then again, all the pawns might have been easier to coordinate with 3 pieces instead of one A.

I think the Germans pronounce it "TZOOG-tsvahngk." It's a deeply intellectual phenomenon which people are much better at understanding than computers are. It most certainly deserves a different kind of name like this! The machine will be utterly incapable of "contemplating" such an oddity, while the human spirit can pause and look deeply into it, imagining the ancillary implications...

Wow. That's great service. I really appreciate your diligence, Ed. Now I just need the time to read your answer... Let's see: 1. b8=A! Kd8 2. Kd5 Be3 3. Ke6 Bf2 4. Af4 Kc8 5. Ad6+... I'll be back in a week or two... Tell the front desk to take my messages... I'm "busy."

Ed, what is the move list for how the Archbishop can win against the Knight and Bishop? It looks like a typical draw to me, due to insufficient material advantage. The Archbishop is unable to attack the Knight with a knight move, and unable to attack the Bishop with a bishop move, while each of these pieces often protect each other while preventing the Archbishop from gaining access to otherwise vulnerable squares. The two pieces have more chances to check the enemy king because of their separate locations, but the Archbishop is more maneuverable due to its unity of location. Looks like a toss up to me!

I am still waiting for confirmation of my registration in the tournament. I sent in $50, but have not heard any news. When does this start? Today is Sept. 1st, and it is 23:00hrs here in LA, so it's already Tuesday on the East coast where Ed Trice is from.

What's going on?

Responding to Chesscarpenter on July 22: the reason I took so long signing up was the 4-day time limit. I have had to convince myself that I will check the games at least every other day. Many times when I am able to get to the computer, I call up BrainKing to find the site is "down." So I go off and read other sites, hit the e-mail, losing interest in checking BrianKing for an hour or two. Then my time is all gone, and so much for chess! If the reliability of BrainKing could be advanced a bit more, it would be more attractive. As it is, I don't know what causes the down time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has to do with all the non-chess and non-GothicChess games being handled concurrently with the chess and Gothic games. If that is the case, then it might help out to separate the two: have one branch of the site for chess and Gothic games, which can remain active while the other branch of non-chess and non-Gothic games goes down for its frequently-needed maintenance. Is that a possibility, or am I just barking up the wrong tree?

My first Gothic game was here on BK a few months ago, and I already am losing my sense for an urgency to castle. It has come on gradually, for my initial instinct was that a castled position is safer. With the 10 file board, however, when it comes to the endgame, the central position of the King seems to be stronger, if for no other reason that when he's on one side or the other, the opponent knows how long it will take him to get to the opposite corner, and can use that against him. With a central King, the opponent can make threats on both flanks, but the central King can counter-threaten to go one way or the other, and so long as the opponent does not know which way he's going, there is some power in the fact of the option remaining open. In my recent win against Matthewhall, I was forced to abandon castling early, but that did not seem to hamper my game later, much to my relief. In other games, I have moved the Bishop Pawns up one square early in the game, which tends to block the Knights moving out, but it prevents the enemy Bishops from attacking my Rooks, and it provides a somewhat unexpected strength in the center flanks early on. In my current game with Kevin, my King Bishop Pawn, having been advanced to h6, gave support to my Chancellor Pawn, which was able to move 7.g5, with exposed attack on Kevin's Archbishop, follwed by my pawn fork, 9.g4, winning the Knight on h3. It now appears that Kevin may lose his Rook as well, for my Archbishop is forking his King and Rook. My only concern with leaving the two center pawns back at f7 and e7 (f2 and e2 for White) is that it seems to confine my King, especially in the event of leaving him uncastled, or if he gets castled, the advanced Bishop Pawns tend to leave him exposed. I'm still not sure of how important that is. However, keeping the center Pawns unmoved allows for freedom of movement of my pieces in the center, especially the Chancellor, which has a miserable time around lots of pawns, and is quite awesome with an open file and a rank or two to terrorize. /Fx/

I like the idea of a Gothic tournament on line, but I don't know if I can make any commitment for a live setting. I do not have two daytime hours during the week or on the weekend. For me it would have to be something like this 5-day BBW tourney in progress. Most moves get made once each day anyway. Even in this format, I lost one game to time out because I got too busy. (BTW: beware of Dredger's Archbishop!) Real life has to take precedence to chess, for me. If I had to figure on getting up in the middle of the night once each week to be sure of not timing out, it would make me less effective in the play on that game by its drain on my enthusiasm. I only get excited about games when I don't play them too much, and if I'm not excited, I make bad moves. Oh, yeah: I still can't find a source for a heavy-weighted Gothic Chess set, and trying to study moves is very frustrating with little salt shakers for Archbishops and pepper shakers for Chancellors. Who sells a good Gothic Chess set? I want a vinyl board, too. I prefer one that lies flat on a table, not one that has little humps and divots. /Fx/

I would like to play this out, but I don't have a gothic set. It would be nice if we could play it out on the computer, though. If that is what was being said earlier, I'm sorry for the repetition.

Also, did you get my question about Professor McFarland at the Univ. of Wisconsin/Whitewater? I have a neighbor who teaches math at UCLA, and he says that a colleague of his is a graduate of UW, and that they are world-renowned for their excellent math teacher training program. I told him about McFarland's use of chess in his Finite Mathematics course, and he was impressed.

The professor may be interested in the math on this discussion board.

juangrande: Do you know Professor McFarland at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Whitewater? The web pages he has are stimulating. I have taken some of them to use as wallpaper for my daughter's computer in hopes that she looks for colleges using such information. Thank you for the tip!

juangrande: Yes, these are all points to consider, and I am interested in the future developments consequent to testing various hypotheses. It seems as though we are touching on a sort of frontier, though limited it may be, for where else is a man to find uncharted territory anymore?? /Fx/

Okay, but if we have pillow fights, can we use feather pillows in the street on a windy day?

Seriously, Ed, your Piece Values web page is quite informative. At first look, it appears to be mathematically correct, which is a welcome development. I have to wonder how much time it must be taking you to assemble all these parts to your platform? Fortunately, you seem to have the general footing secure in the way things work, so we can continue to blithely play our gothic games without wondering if it will ever catch on: of course it will!

And the feathers will be scattered by the wind for sure.

This is exactly what I was talking about when we started the B+N vs. K contests. The spirit of putting the theories to practical test is the key issue. We can hurl e-mails at each other 'till the cows come home, and it won't prove anything. We have to test it in the lab. Ed Trice claims to have played the streets in this question of pawns outside the square, and that is precisely the wisdom that is required. We are dealing with a 10x8 board, and it OUGHT to come as no surprise that there may be some differences in play rooted in the fact of two more files on the board.

We are touching on things that could become hot topics of dispute in the chess world very soon, for it seems that people are just now starting to warm up to the idea, that to the greatest intellectual board game ever devised, a viable alternative now exists.

Furthermore, Drueke, and such manufacturers of high quality, tournament size chessboards, ought to wake up to the imminent demand for 10x8 boards, because it won't be forever that serious gothic chess players are willing to make do with roll-ups, or (like me!) post-its on the right and left borders of their walnut and maple solid boards.

--Unless, of course, the War Effort has placed reservations on the supply of seasoned hardwood lumber, in which case we are facing delays, not excluding those caused by War Protestors who impede shipment of materials... /Fx/

65th and Whisperz, it is not my intention to overwhelm you with esoteric nonsense. The terms we are using have specific significance, and this discussion is of genuine interest to me. Please do not think anybody is attempting to pull a fast one here, but if you decide this is too exhausting to follow, perhaps you would do well to go back (when you have had some rest-- a luxury for some these days!) and simply look for the word or words which appear mysterious, and look them up in a good dictionary. I am not kidding. You may well be amazed at how much less stressful it is to correct misconceived notions which begin in one word. I look forward to reading the links that Juangrande provided on the Opposition and on King and Pawn endings. These are two subjects regarding which I am quite pleased to find, there are real people who are willing to think about them, for I have never met such a person in real life. While there are books written, most chess players regard these topics as too boring to bother with. I believe that their frustration (perceived as "boredom") is due to not understanding the principles at work in these concepts, which is the root cause of their boredom, for once they're understood, a player suddenly finds he has a new appetite for studying King and Pawn endings (or Rook and Pawn endings, or Bishop and Knight vs. King endings, etc.) and he has a change of heart. On the internet, I have run into people who have experienced this change, and they are happier chess players as a result! If I can help people find happiness, that is its own reward.

These concepts are not for everyone, however, and a good chess player need not feel left out or inadequate for not caring to study these rare endings. Not everyone is interested in helpmate compositions, for instance. I am one of those. But I do not therefore think that someone who does appreciate them is somehow less of a chessplayer. In fact, if I ever meet someone who is a fan of helpmates, I look forward to asking them: what makes them think that way? Maybe I just have not had the right explanation.

In any event, I am glad you are participating in the discussion, for your disquiet is duly noted, and I will please try to be more discreet with my ramblings, so as not to appear presumptuous.

Eschew obfuscation! /Fx/

When I say "faster" I am talking about two things: obviously, the fewer the moves in a game, the faster it looks (recorded) on paper, and since most game lists do not include a time value for each move, that duration of the game is somewhat nebulous. Correspondence chess may have a different look to the moves, but I think it would take an eye with much experience or else some great talent to tell whether a given move list came from correspondence play, which takes many days between each move, or speed chess, which can consist of two or three moves per second. Even so, lightening chess played by great masters likely exhibits more profundity than correspondence chess played by amateurs.

Secondly, there is a tempo aspect to chess which is inherent in the moves regardless of the time it actually took to play them. When one side achieves checkmate by force, it is in fact necessary that the offensive pieces by virtue of their aggression, have the initiative, for without it, they would not be able to press the defense into a losing position. This initiative has a curious aspect in that it can be entirely gained or entirely lost again, in one move. The frequency with which this occurs is another way to say the game is moving "faster" or "slower".

In my own limited experience with gothic chess, it seems to me that tempos get trumped by opposing tempos, leaving layers of latent action which has not been seen in chess, as far as I can tell. This complexity carries a sort of speed of its own which appears to make the game end in fewer moves, if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps someone with better information can answer these questions. I have not made a very exhaustive study of chess theory and practice, but I am amused by the similarities and differences between the two games.

Someone brought up the concept of "distant opposition," maybe on IYT, and I do not know what that is, so I feel ignorant. It has to do with controlling the right and the left sides of the board from afar by placement of the King on the square which affords his potential movement the greatest effectiveness. If I could learn the basics of that theory, it may help me to find the answers I seek here, and then again, maybe not.

I was trying to identify in my mind the causes of gothic's speed, and in order to understand what is really happening here, I thought that separating the power of the pieces from the size of the boards would effect a clearer comprehension of what elements contribute to gothic's observed faster pace. I do not know if such knowledge would be useful, practically speaking, it's just this compulsion I have of wanting to penetrate the essence of a thing: in chess, it has been a journey of several decades for me, and now in gothic, I am facing the possibility that I may not live long enough to find the answers I seek.

And in the greater picture, as far as this discussion goes, the world may not last long enough for ANY of us to get all the answers we hope to find! /Fx/

What happens when the Cancellors and Archbishops are traded off, leaving regular pieces and two additional pawns on a bigger board: are such games likewise faster than chess, or slower by the fact of a larger arena with more pawns? If faster, to what can this speed be attributed, to the greater difficulty of protecting opposite sides of the board, or some other aspect? /Fx/

I tried to send this for the past 2 days but could not get this discussion board to activate. I got messages to the effect that BrainKing was being updated.

In case it still is possible to register my entry, here it is:

Wht: Ka8, Bg8, Ni1
Blk: Kc7, with Black to move. /Fx/

This is no mate. It is a curious 5-fold repetition, which would have been a draw after the first 3. The computer did not recognize it as such, and neither did the programmer, aparently.

It seems to me that this mistake begins when the King moves to g4, already occupied by the Bishop. If we substitute a legal move, such as Kh4, the play could have played out to mate. But this mistake continues in the Knight moves, which instead should have continued the pattern already established, which would have then resulted in mate at move 37, anyway.

My question is rather on several of the previous positions, which have the Black King moving in ways that seem to facilitate his own demise. I am now wondering if the program was hastening toward a stalemate position instead of attempting to survive 50 moves? This latter objective is the principle subject of our investigation, after all. /Fx/

I am unquestionably thankful for your effort in putting out these solutions, Ed, and it will give me a good workout to study them in detail. In the interest of learning better chess, this is an exercise that can go a long way to filling a void in a student's tactical skill: the proper handling of Bishop and Knight, and more generally, the proper handling of two pieces of different powers.

While I delight in the prospect of gaining more proficiency on the board, it comes as a curious disappointment that I have found an obvious error in your move list. In the solution you have provided for Whisperz' entry, there is the following: 12.Bg6 is followed by 13.Kh6, and then 14.Kg6(*?*). This is impossible, because the King is moving to a square occupied by his own Bishop.

I trust this is an oversight and that you will soon locate the source of the error and fix it, for we are depending on you to get it right, eventually. That is, we can't rely on computer moves that would not win in real life games. /Fx/

Personal to Ed, the dyslexic wizard:

With all due respects, sir, while we all appreciate your posting of the solutions, we must ask for a reconsideration in Whisperz' case, for he said, "Black King on j8" and you provided a solution for mate in 34, however, it proceeds: "1...Kj2," which means that while you have acknowledged j8 as the starting position, you have somehow allowed the computer to register j1 (or i1, i2, i3, or j3) as the starting square. Ain't it nice you are among friends, who so joyfully tolerate your little foibles??

DSYLEXCIS FO TEH WORDL UNTIE!

Let's see now that's, the Bishop changed color and it took a Capablanca fan to notice, you let the program stop at 64 plies without questioning its reason for stopping, and you provided a Whisperz solution for a position unlike Whisperz' entry. But who's keeping track? /Fx/

Hey! Hey! Hey! No fair giving away the answer to Fencer! If you guys wanna turn some shady deals, you'd better do it behind closed interfaces or whatever, 'cause it makes the rest of us jealous. /Fx/

Now, now, now! Enough of this self-effacing rhetoric!! Anyone who calls himself an idiot and then promptly proceeds to demonstrate the contrary is, per se, a walking oxymoron; provided, of course, that he can walk.

So, if you will please stand to be corrected, Ed: you are obviously not an idiot, but a moron, that is, an OXYmoron.

O X Y M O R O N S O F T H E W O R L D, U N I T E!!! /Fx/

Dear Ed Trice,

I have reviewed your geocities posting cursorilly, and would like to say "thank you"
for that. It is something I have always wondered about, and now I need wonder no longer. An interesting observation is, that while my perview was hasty and superficial, I probably spent at least as long looking it over as your computer spent generating it in all its precision.

While I cannot claim to think as a computer does, it is nevertheless significant to me, and therefore worth the mention, that several points come to mind as I see your results:

1) The solutions for checkmate as given are mostly impossible to achieve in real life play. This does not detract from their value for the computer, however, for in view of the purpose of this list being to generate the answer to my question, I acknowledge and appreciate this fact.

2) The first 148 mates are with the bishop of one color, and then starting with #149 the bishop changes color. This infers that the following 147 positions are likely a repetition or mirroring of the first 148, and so on for the other 2 corners.

3) Of these first 148, only the first 65 are with the Black king in the bishop's color of corner, the rest are on the side of the board between corners, where nobody ever achieves checkmate when the defensive king moves correctly. Others, among the first 65, may be legitimate mating positions, but inasmuch as they cannot be arrived at in real play, they would also never happen in a live game. These in question are all, therefore, practically impossible.

4) The checkmates that Capablanca exemplifies in his writings (I am not aware of any in his actual games, but if anyone knows of one, please let me know!) are to be found at positions 2, 32, 151, 195, 338, 382, 501, and 531. They are all the same arrangement of pieces, however, placed in the 4 corners, right hand and left hand, as it were.

I have tried to arrive at an answer for your challenge to find the starting position for the longest possible checkmate for these 4 pieces, and it is a daunting task, to say the least. If I give you an answer now, it would be a shot in the dark, for I do not have time to think about it right now. After studying your 8x8 solution, it seems that I am not well prepared to render an educated conclusion in regards to this question.
Although, if you are giving us a deadline, I will put mine in, just to be a participant. Please let me know if there is a time limit on this.

And thank you, again, Ed, for your diligence. /Fx/

I'm still looking at your 8x8 solution. I thought I found some weaknesses, but I looked again and I had presumed wrong.

Yes, I still think this is an excellent study, and that to the extent that he recommends it to anyone who wishes to improve their play, Jose Raul Capablanca was, and remains a good counsel.

I have found myself too busy to drop everything and generate my answer just yet. I am very much interested, though. I hope everybody with the time to spare on this doesn't leave me in the dust because I have other duties to which I must attend. Please consider keeping a record of these proceedings, so that I will be able to see later what I missed.

Income tax, property tax, end of the month, kids are sick, Girl Scout Cookie pay-up time, new songs for Lent, fix the lawnmower, some vandal broke the back window of my Volvo station wagon (he's lucky I didn't catch him), banking, paperwork, computer upgrades, family wants to go on a vacation, another house in escrow, water pump leaks on the Plymouth, plus general maintenance. Oh yes: work, too.

I'll be back! /Fx/

Ed, what an amazing concept! In one move, you have gotten to the crux of this issue, that is: What are the starting positions? I was going to suggest that the 4 pieces be located in the 4 corners of the board, just to make the playing field even, and to get on with the action. But you have one-upped me on that level already! For if we were to play this out, we would have as many as 12 endings: 6 with the defensive king on a light square corner, and 6 on a dark. Some of these 12 games may work out to be insignificantly different. I will have to look at this some more, though, before I submit my contribution for your contest. I will be interested in the results!

Your offer of a thermal mug for the winner makes it all the more appealing, especially with that thermal lid thrown in. I've always wanted a thermal lid!

I would like to know, how can you be sure that a program can find all the best moves for the defensive king? Sometimes a hidden flaw leaves a program "blind" to a line of play. That's why I thought a tournament would put the theory to a practical test. /Fx/

The task of bringing checkmate upon a lone King with only a Knight and Bishop has always been a good exercise to learn coordination of the minor pieces. Capablanca highly recommends it in his Chess Fundamentals, bemoaning the fact that many otherwise excellent players cannot corral his King in the required 50 moves (no pawns to move). This ending translates somewhat to the 10x8 board, however, it seems to me that the time it takes to achieve the mate is longer than on an 8x8 board, assuming good play by the lone King, although 50 moves seems to be sufficient. It is more challenging to force him into the wrong-color-corner (the standard preliminary position) while eliminating his recourse to the long side, but it is possible to do as far as I can see. I would like to see this question explored empirically, for the fact of what works is the final test in this game. If the enemy king can slip out to the 10-square side, he is then able to somewhat double the number of moves required to mate. If he does escape once to the 10-square side, it looks like he can be somewhat contained at the opposite, wrong-colored-corner, inasmuch as prevented from doing the same thing again, for if he could repeatedly escape, the knight and bishop would be then incapable of winning, regardless of the number of moves. This second containment appears to have something to do with the coordination of the offensive pieces, and especially the pattern of the knight moves. A student of this ending will quickly discover that while the knight has some usefulness while located on a square opposite in color to the bishop's squares, the highest power is always obtained when the knight and bishop are on the same color squares. There are several consequences to this doctrine.

If there is anyone else as interested in this exercise as I am, I would suggest that perhaps a tournament could be set up using only these 4 pieces on a 10x8 board. A win for Black (or White?) would consist of escaping checkmate for 50 moves, while a win for White (or Black) would be achieving checkmate. We could call it the "Capablanca Memorial Endgame Tournament," because he pronounced the value of its rigorous study to improve chess at large, and he was given to dabble in 10x8 format. I would be interested to see how other players handle this ending.

It is my sincere hope that the question of whether or not the 50-move limit is sufficient to secure checkmate does not pose a problem for keeping control of the patent on gothic chess. We could find out that it takes a more skilled player to win in this larger format, but that does not necessarilly mean that the rules of the game need to be changed, for new rules would mean a new game, and a new game would not be covered by the current patent.

There is much to be gained by toying with this ending, and I would like to share my own fascination with gothic chess fans, if they are interested. /FX/

All this talk about relative values is great. I would never have guessed that I would be interested in it, but here I am reading every word: and LOVING IT!! Even the decimal point values don't get me worn out, because I can see that there are logical reasons for using them. It rather comes to mind that the tendency for sticking with single-digit values in chess has always seemed a bit fudged. Maybe with the broader perspective of a more complex game, rethinking the chess piece values for 8x8 games won't be such an impossible task. At least we may find new reasons to corroborate the same values that the past greats agreed on. In any event, this new perspective cannot do other than expand our appreciation for chess as it has been all along. And what about when the appreciation level starts to impress the general public? What are people going to be saying in Peoria, IL, come October 2003?

I can't help but wonder what is going to happen when chessplayers start to catch on to the idea that gothic chess is a new frontier that they, with their race horse mentality in chess already, are well poised to enter; that it makes for a playing experience that is every bit as enthralling as chess, but in the process, you get whiter knuckles? (The larger playing board will make a better sized table for coffee and doghnuts, and besides, with the new plasma TV monitors coming out, a wider board will fit more beautifully on the screen...)

I don't know much about tournaments, because I've never played one (my current entrance in the BigBadWolf's 5-day is my first of any kind!) but it seems to me that there may be a lurking popularity explosion in the near future with this game. I am so glad for Ed Trice that he has secured a patent. I get the feeling he is going to be stretching that puppy to its limits. Therefore, I wonder what preparations would be prudent for the advent of tens of thousands of people all wanting gothic board sets all at once? It takes a few months to get production up, and it takes a good bit of diligence to enforce the protection of patent violations. When stuff is made in -well, let's face it- China, the black market for patented items is bigger than the legitimate market. If overseas sales of gothic board knockoffs proliferates, it will be pretty hard to enforce any kind of control over importation of cheater sets into the swap meets and flea markets. How can you bust a guy pushing a 3-wheeled cart in Chinatown?

Another field in which I have no experience is marketing, but I do know that it can get expensive to have a marketing firm do a contract for your new product. I've heard of guys going broke just trying to keep up with preliminary expenses. It seems to me that using the internet here, Ed could ask people to take a sample board and (four extra?) pieces into local coffee bars where chess groups meet (I've heard of one in Glendale, CA, where Armenians get quite serious about their national pastime, chess) and set up a board to have a little fun. We could answer questions, suggest visits to this website, and report back to Ed without running up any marketing expenses for him! I would not be surprised one iota if within a week, men start walking in with homemade boards and handcarved pieces! Just be sure you have a place to duck when the arguments erupt!!

But presuming all these details get worked out, has anyone considered what to do if this gets popular by summer or even the big rush next Christmas? /Fx/

The Archbishop is fairly formidable in knight/bishop situations. He's able to change color as a bishop with each knight move, and wherever he goes as a bishop, he threatens to move as a knight.

But as formidable as he is, the Chancellor is absolutely awesome. He is able to zip around like a rook, and land on sqares from which he immediately issues proclamations of "fork!" in 2,3,4,5 or even 6 locations, which a Queen can do as well, but not on the squares that the Chancellor does: his forks are like the knights and rooks combined. /Fx/

Dear Mr. Edward Trice,

The story of your quest is of great interest to me, as you can see by my explanation of what makes chess, itself, interesting. In a way, your decision to apply for a patent using the 10x8 format is an exponentially great chess move, per se. You must have been rather anxious in hopes the patent office would not reject your application. I would love to hear your story some day about how that came down, and what your reaction was when you were given the news of being granted the patent. In case you can't tell, you have a ready-made fan club, here! /Fx/

Gentlemen,
It is an honor to be counted among such esteemed company as yours, and it is my sincere hope that such pleasant and reasoned discourse may prosper and increase.

I am contemplating the significance of promoting to a Newpiece in leiu of a Queen, and not merely for its immediate effect, but for what follows thereafter. Sometimes the game continues for more than a few moves after promotion, but also, the promoted piece becomes an immediate target. I am thinking about the added element of uncertainty which now accompanies promotion. It seems that the same acceleration that the Newpieces add to the game at large are added to the act of pawn promotion.

I am also curious about the decision to make the new board 10x8. Was there much experimenting done with other formats, or was it a conclusion quickly arrived at because it simply works so well? I have played 4-corner chess with my kids, and it is a real jungle out there! Two other people move after the one that follow your move, so the board changes in wild ways before each move, and there tends to be a r-e-a-l l-o-n-g t-i-m-e between successive turns.

I looked at the website that shows games in action, and the play is exhilaratingly rapid, but that is what the mind needs in order to absorb the spirit of the game.
Surely my observation of games in action will go far to answer my concerns, but it seems I enjoy the wonderment of anticipating consequences and the making of valid generalities. I have always found such pleasure in the moves of chess: wondering what will be coming next; which is near to the heart of mental combinational calculation (computers are heartless!) and the thrill of taking a risk with informed confidence, that one's opponent could not have seen a better move...or could he? It seems to me that it is the learning of when to be sure of one's next move and when to recognize that instinctive voice warning of some vague danger ahead, that makes playing chess (and now gothic chess!) worth the effort.

There is always a thrill to be had when one's play improves, and now with gothic chess, a genuinely new element is added which promises a geometric increase of the very pleasure which makes chess advocates love their game. I expect that by learning both games well, one can use each to expand his skill at the other.

This is the first variant of chess that has held any interest to me, for the others have seemed to be cheap knock-offs of the best game ever devised in recorded history (my own bias). This is different. It's kind of like putting a turbocharger on a hemi. You get more power, and the ride is more exciting. But it's not necessarilly the best format for everyday use. I cannot imagine ever losing my love for chess, and as much interest as I may develop in gothic chess, I expect to always return to the reliable standard, at least from time to time! Having to face a grand prix speedway is more intense than driving down the freeway. But who would want to commute to work every day in a formula 1 car? Okay, some would. /Fx/

When pawns are promoted, are there any new trends developing as to favorites, or are players still favoring Queens, over Chancellors or Archbishops, perhaps due to their abiding insecurity about the new pieces' versatility and/or staying power?

Note: I intend to imply a relationship between the apparent inherent speed of development in any position and the necessity of considering the chances that, since the very character of the position may well change rapidly with the advent of a Chancellor or Archbishop upon promotion, perhaps their value should be accordingly adjusted (up!) over the alternative of adding (even a second!) Queen.

Comments welcome! /Fx/

P.S. Is it time to think of a new name for "queening"? Would something like "crowning" or "electing" or "raising" catch on? I suppose we can forget "knighting" right away! (Or...should we?!) They talk about someone having been "created Cardinal" on a particular day. Could a pawn be "created Chancellor" or "created Archbishop"? That could be abbreviated "c/C" or "c/A," instead of "p/C" or "p/A".

Dear Mr. Trice,
Far be it from my expertise to question your mathematics, but it seems to me that in the message from which I derived this reply opportunity (St. Patrick's Day, March 17th), in paragraph #6 you made an error, saying "b2/a1" when you should have said "b1/a2". The math does not change as a result, because it seems to presume the latter terms, anyway. /Fx/