Why don't we talk about something productive? I'll start: My experience with Gothic Vortex has mostly been getting smashed even at the lowest level. Now I'm trying starting the game with material odds and working from Queen and winning easily to lesser valued pieces and set it on a more difficult setting. This creates very exciting games. What is much more exciting and fun now is that I have a real chance at winning.

To add spice to the game I like to randomize the starting position too. As in Full chess aka Fischer random and chess960, you can start with many different positions. What works well with the program is sticking the king and rooks where they usually belong and randomize the other pieces. This gives 740 different setups. If you randomize all the pieces except that bishops are on opposite colors and king between rooks there are 84,000 different ways.

O, btw if you want to set up pieces randomly all that's needed is 1 die.

For full random with bishops on opposite colors and king between rooks:
1st bishop roll 1-5 and count from left the black squares. Second bishop 1-5 and count from left white squares.
King can't go on the edge squares so roll 1-6 and counting skip first square and count to whatever you roll.
Roll for a rook on the left and right of king.
Roll for Chancellor, Archbishop, and queen, then put knights on what's left.

Or you can start with king and rooks on normal squares and then do bishops and then Q,C,A then knights.

maybe that's how Gothic Chess was invented from Bird's...

Cardinalflight, be careful not to violate the Gothic patent with your random setups :-).

And for Tedbarber : What is a "balanced" game in your opinion?.What is "playable"?
Are these random setups not balanced and playable too? Both players have equal chances!
I think we have here at Brainking nearly all chessvariants as "balanced" games, except perhaps Maha- and Hordechess.
To your second point I will not answer.

Ya, I may have to be careful about hosting a random setup 8x10 tournament incase the unlikely 1/84000 chance of the gothic position came up. I'd be in for some real trouble ;) wink.

<>What works well with the program is sticking the king and rooks where they usually belong >and randomize the other pieces. This gives 740 different setups.

How did you come up with that number? My calculations give 720.

The number of initial positions where the Rooks and the King is on their "normal" places AND the Bishops are on different colors is:

(7!/4) - (5!/2)·(6+3) = 1260 - 540 = 720


>If you randomize all the pieces except that bishops are on opposite colors and king between >rooks there are 84,000 different ways.

I agree on that. The number F we are looking is:

F = (Σ[{i=1,8} (i+1)·i/2])·(7!/4) - (5!/2)·9·((Σ[{k=1,8} (k+1)·k/2])-6·3-4·5-2·7) - 6·a-4·b-2·c

where:
a = 2·(5!/2)·(6+3) + (5!/2)·(10+1)
b = 3·(5!/2)·(6+3) + 2·(5!/2)·(10+1)
c = 4·(5!/2)*(6+3) + 3·(5!/2)·(10+1)

And it really results in 84000.

How did you calculated that number? You used the following method or something different? I hope you didn't count all positions by hand:-)

Ya, it is 720. I saw there are 3 places for 1st bishop, 4 for second bishop, 5 for Q, 4 for C, 3 for A, and *1 way to put the 2 knights.

George, any more wins with 1. f4 against Vortex? I am gradually expanding the opening book to add the correct play where I see it went wrong.

Please take a look at this image.

The TRUE Bird configuration

This shows both the CORRECT and INCORRECT configurations. Someone said that Gothic Chess was merely replacing the Chancellor and Queen location on Bird's board.

Clearly this is not the case.

See page 39 of "The Adventure of Chess" written by Edward Lasker, published by Dover in 1949, 1950, and 1959 (same book, different editions.)

The confusion stems from the names of the pieces. Recall I refer to them as Chancellor and Arcbishop, whereas others, including Capablanca, have called these same pieces Marshall and Chancellor. So, the Chancellor of Bird is really my Archbishop, and his Marshall is my Chancellor. What compounds the confusion is that later on Capablanca switched his terminology, and I adopted his later designations to maintain the status quo.

It is obvious to many people that Capablanca switched the location of the Bishop and Archbishop on one side of Bird's board, and the Bishop and Chancellor on the other side. CAPABLANCA DID NOT MISS THE "OBVIOUS" SWITCHING OF THE CHANCELLOR AND QUEEN, SINCE THIS WAS NOT THE WAY BIRD PLAYED HIS GAME!

Capablanca "fixed" Bird's mate in 2 problem 1. Ch3 Nc6?? 2. Nxh7# which was an ugly blemish. But, in fixing Bird's setup, he introduced another weakness, namely, his hanging i-pawn.

Let's say you like the "Wrong Bird" version of the game, as shown in the diagram. That would feature Rook Knight Bishop Chancellor Queen King Archbishop Bishop Knight Rook.

That setup results in a very unplayable game.

1. Cc3 Nc6

White is striking against the unprotecetd c7 pawn, and Black blocks the Chancellor's rook attack by interposing the Knight.

2. Cd5?! Ce6

White hops like a knight and hits c7 anyway, and Black holds it with his Chancellor.

3. Ah3 Cd4

White kicks the Chancellor and Black dodges the attack and goes after the c2-pawn.

4. Cc3

Not 4. Cxc7? d5! [Bishop hitting Archbishop on h3 and exhausting retreats of the chancellor] 5.Cxa8 Bxh3 6. Cxe8+ Kxe8 and now if 7. Nxh3? then 7...Cxc2 forks the Queen and Rook, so 7. Na3 is forced.

So you can see you have an embarrasing form of imbalance in that setup. White should refrain from such Chancellor folly early on, true, and Black can most likely develop normally then repel it as we do 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5? but the fact that an instability of sorts has been introduced to the game should prove to be a deterent to its ultimate acceptability by the masses.

<>George, any more wins with 1. f4 against Vortex? I am gradually expanding the opening book to add the >correct play where I see it went wrong.

I will start playing games against G.V 1.03 from Wednesday or even tomorrow, since i have started learning C programming and my time all these last 7 days was limited.

I wonder if it is difficult to add some kind of opening learning to Gothic Vortex? It would help it to avoid lost positions. Do you have any plans for this?

And how do you write with bold letters on this site? The: [B]text[/B] doesn't work.

Well do you suggest that [b]should work[/b] should be bold? I can't support your opinion:-)

<*b> remove the * works fine

There is a way to "learn". Our very intelligent checkers program (a 154 MB download!) which is available here makes use of learning.

The problem is how to get the "learned data" from an end user's hard drive back to us so we can "pool the learning" and make it available for all to access.

Also, the learning function requires the end user to allow the program to perform some analysis on itself after the game. This can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days, depending on the complexity of the variations. This is something that cannot be "enforced", so we would have to figure out how to do this. Perhpas we could have the users upload their wins, and we would have a dedicated system that did all of the "learning".

<1. Cc3 Nc6 2. Cd5?! Ce6 3. Ah3 Cd4 4. Cc3

>So you can see you have an embarrasing form of imbalance in that setup. White should refrain from such Chancellor folly early on, true, and Black can most likely develop normally then repel it as we do 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5? but the fact that an instability of sorts has been introduced to the game should prove to be a deterent to its ultimate acceptability by the masses

I cannot see any imbalance in this setup only because the early attack with the chancellor against the "weak" point c7 is not a good plan (that means perhaps that the unprotected pawn is not so weak as it looks).Btw Black can also and perhaps better play 2..c7-c6 (like Caro Kann) with a safe defense.
I would say better : Black is okay ,no fast refutation is possible and the setup is playable.

Caissus missed the point. An imbalance was shown from plausible play. You can't say "Don't play those moves and there is no imbalance."

The c-pawns can be attacked since they are not defended. White to move can win in that game. And if play is "forced", like ...c6 for Black, what is the point? You mean every time I attack the c-pawn you will play ...c6 then? Doesn't that detract from the game?

Why make a new variant if every amateur will be tempted to play 1. Cc3 and then every black player is forced to play something like ...c6 as a result?

This stifles play instead of makes it better.

The Chancellor/Queen swap does not work, the game is a failure.

<An imbalance was shown from plausible play >
The early Chancellor move is not plausible and demonstrates nothing except it is bad itself. It doesn`t show how you can take an advantage of the unprotected pawn.
< White to move can win in that game >
Show us a plausible move sequence which is suitable to force a win for White.And only than you perhaps can substantiate,that the setup is inplayable.
Otherwise we can play in GC 1. g4 b5 ?! 2.Lxa8 +- and now we can consider if the G setup is playable or perhaps we have imbalance...

I'll play you a game of "Wrong Bird" chess if you want.

By the way, the moves I showed were "plausible" whereas yours were the moves of an idiot.

Why don`t you play with yourself?
First please play your game against Alex2 to a finish without intentional delay.
Btw, most players know who are the idiots here.

Since Caissus declined to play me a game of "Wrong Bird" chess, I will consider the matter closed since he agrees with me that white to move is a win.

By the way, you are the only opponent who has not moved against me, slow Caissus. It is my turn in all of my other games.

it seems to me he chose not to play because he DISagrees with you. I've never found Caissus slow...I have, however, heard of some people on this site deliberately waiting until the last minute to move to delay losses. Doesn't that just curl your toes?

i agree with Ed's posts. just makes sense.

I will move in my games with you so fast or so slow like you move in your game against Alex2,in which you have a lost position since move ten.(cit from one of your messages :"You are losing, not me, you just don't know it yet. You cant stop the pawns.
The game will take about 1 year to finish, maybe more now. I will move with 1 minute remaining.").
You are a really fair player!

Your message makes no sense Caissus. Why are you concerned about a "regular chess" game of mine with another player? That was a wild King's Gambit game where I gave up 2 pieces just for fun.

And what am I going to tell Fencer when I move fast in that game and you move slow in our Gothic Chess game?

You don't make any sense and I am putting you on HIDE, ignoring everything you type from now on.

Bye bye Caissus!

<>I cannot see any imbalance in this setup only because the early attack with the chancellor against the "weak" point c7 is not a good plan.

Right this is not the reason, but there is an imbalance in this setup for another reason.
When white plays: 1.Cc3 then black should immediatelly has to play one move to reject it! He can not play from the King's side as he would lose(or anyway he would have an important disadvantage). This restriction of freedom for the black's choices, is a huge drawback of this variation.

This means that on a game, whatever first move white will make, black should have the option of making many various moves and not be restricted to few.

>I would say better : Black is okay ,no fast refutation is possible and the setup is playable.

Right, no fast refutation is possible, and the game is playable but since there is the aforementioned inaccuracy in this game, something Gothic chess doesn't have, we should prefer the second for playing.


>Show us a plausible move sequence which is suitable to force a win for White.And only than you perhaps can substantiate,that the setup is inplayable.

As i've said the game is playable, but it is inferior to Gothic Chess since the lack of freedom in black's 1st move when white plays 1.Cc3 is decisive.

sounds to me like cassy is alex.

..or more probably Barnie is Eddie...

Excellent point Thomas. He did post as if he was reviewing the entire game, even claiming to know exactly where a losing move was made early in the game. I think Caissus is AlexII. Good observation!

And another thing, where did that direct quote that Caissus made about AlexII come from? Does AlexII send information to Caissus about his own games against me? That is odd isn't it?

Seeing the game Ed Trice Vs AlexII, what i understand is that it's really an experiment of Ed at an opening he discussed at CCC some weeks before. Playing King's Gambit, Muzio gambit is really a suicide in my eyes.

What i really can't understand is the 11.Be5? move that Ed played. He was a Knight and a Bishop down, and gave his most powerful piece. I think 11.Qe2 would be MUCH better for white that is in an already lost position.

Nothing odd about Caissus having that quote, I've read it myself from two different sources.

Atfer many games that he was sleeping Kramnik woke up! He would almost win the last game, but Leko found the nice...Rb7! Now Kramnik has a good position in order to win(very hard though).

PGN so far.......:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h6 5. g4 Bd7 6. Nd2 c5 7. dxc5 e6 8. Nb3 Bxc5
9. Nxc5 Qa5+ 10. c3 Qxc5 11. Nf3 Ne7 12. Bd3 Nbc6 13. Be3 Qa5 14. Qd2 Ng6 15.
Bd4 Nxd4 16. cxd4 Qxd2+ 17. Kxd2 Nf4 18. Rac1 h5 19. Rhg1 Bc6 20. gxh5 Nxh5 21.
b4 a6 22. a4 Kd8 23. Ng5 Be8 24. b5 Nf4 25. b6 Nxd3 26. Kxd3 Rc8

What the hell has that got to do with gothic chess??

Right George, I was looking for some "lively" play on CCC and there was much talk of the "Double Muzio" which was a known loss. I wanted to play it anyway since I saw lots of inferior play in the opening books.

I found for 11. Qe2 some good play for black which I elect to keep private for now. The 11. Be5 move compounds the pins and guarantees the recovery of at least one piece. It had not been played before so I decided to see what it would bring.

Again, it was a "fun" game for me, mostly to improve upon the pawn-to-g4 line which is "book" that gives black an easy win. I think my analysis shows better play for white.

I still don't know what Caissus is complaining about. It is not him I am playing, or is it?

Reza, the guy who created the tournament, is moving much slower, only on move 13 in my game with him in the same event. I am on move 27 against AlexII.

Amazing that in this "fun" game you claimed to be winning but now admit you're losing yet have offered a draw when it's your move?!?

I cannot agree with you Chessmaster

"When white plays: 1.Cc3 then black should immediatelly has to play one move to reject it! He can not play from the King's side as he would lose(or anyway he would have an important disadvantage). This restriction of freedom for the black's choices, is a huge drawback of this variation."

1.Cc3 probably is not the best move for White,like Edtrice` move sequence shows.If it proves something than the contrary of his statement.
This move is not a threat for Black`s weak point and he must not fear it.

"This means that on a game, whatever first move white will make, black should have the option of making many various moves and not be restricted to few."

1.Cc3 is not the only move,with 1. . c7-c6 Black has another good answer to defense his position.Moreover Black can try 1...Na6!?, 1..Ce6!?

Again I must say I see no decisive disadvantage in this variant,at best a small blemish.

<>1.Cc3 probably is not the best move for White,like Edtrice` move sequence shows.If it >proves something than the contrary of his statement.
>This move is not a threat for Black`s weak point and he must not fear it.

I didn't say it should fear it. In fact it's a bad move for white to play.
BUT what is the important and what i've said is that WHEN white plays it, then black have only 4 playable moves. Have you seen this at Gothic Chess or Chess? No. At Gothic chess and Chess whatever move white plays, then black has at least 15-20 moves to play or to be more correct at least 9-11 moves that are good theoretically.

>Again I must say I see no decisive disadvantage in this variant,at best a small blemish.

Me too but as i've said, this is not the important thing. The important is that it has this small weakness while it's brother Gothic Chess, hasn't. So we should prefer Gothic Chess if we had to choose between these 2. But we haven't, so we can play both! But as our time is not infinite we should stick with the better one and this is G.C.

simple solution. get the 'bad bird' game on here and see how many play it.

Yeah and someone should patent this treasure of a game since it has not been claimed yet.

A balanced game is where the starting position is such that:(1.)all pawns have at least 1 piece protecting them;(2.) Indian formations are possible;(3.)neither side has a definite advantage on move 1(as is the case in Bird's and Capablanca Chess);(4.)Quick lines of developement are fluid and available(only Gothic Chess meets all these requirements.

You're quoting EdTrice, aren't you? Anyways, Gothic Chess is only perfect within the context of its creator's goals (Indian formations, protected pawns, shorter average game length, etc.). Some chess variants aim for different goals; players who prefer those goals will prefer those variants. No one variant will satisfy everyone.

<>A balanced game is where the starting position is such that:(1.)all pawns have at least 1 >piece protecting them;(2.) Indian formations are possible;(3.)neither side has a definite >advantage on move 1(as is the case in Bird's and Capablanca Chess);(4.)Quick lines of >developement are fluid and available(only Gothic Chess meets all these requirements.

This is your definition of a balanced game. I have another. Another person has something different. So you see that you can't really say that a balanced games has..... as this is not a fact but only an opinion.

Anyway i agrre on 1).
I do care for 2) but i don't find it necessary for a balanced game.
As for the 3) it's wrong. How do you know that at Chess or Gothic Chess white or black hasn't a definite advantage at move 1? If you mean "obvious" advantage then i think that at Bird's variation this is not true.
I don't think 4) has nothing to do with a well-balanced game.

As George and others have noted, opinions vary, so it is a good time to state facts first, then offer comments on the facts afterwards.

1. In Bird's Chess, after 1. Ch3 Black has to defend against 2. Cxh7# since the h-pawn is undefended. Checkmate results if it is not defended, so there is clearly no arguing this point!

2. In Capablanca's chess, the push of White's d-pawn will reveal the attack of the Archbishop against Black's undfended i-pawn.

3. In "Wrong Bird's" chess, 1. Cc3 requires Black to respond to the threat against the undefended c-pawn.

4. In Gothic Chess, there are no such 1-move threats.

I think we can all agree to the above.

The question remains, is 1. Ch3 a "good move" in Bird's chess, since after defending the h-pawn, Black may be able to gradually build up pressure against the misplaced White chancellor. Same for the other variants mentioned.

I think we can all agree there is nothing wrong with 1. d3 or 1. d4 in Capablanca's chess, yet Black still must react against the i-pawn "attack". I don't think a natural move such as 1...Nh6 can be labeled "forced" since it is a move you might want to play anyway.

But, given all of the above, I think it is also safe to say that in the other variants, the scope for play in the opening is reduced as a direct result of the initial configuration of the board.

In this sense, we might loosely refer to Gothic Chess as "having the most balance."

In Januschess the i/b pawns are not protected.
Is this game not "balanced" even so?
The chances are equal for both players.
Is not this fact deciding for balanced game?

It depends on the definition of the "balanced game" of course.......

Here are 5 games i played with the Gothic Vortex 1.03 and a good book. I just played only with white pieces the 5 games, but i will play another set of 5 games with black. Both 5 games were at 30 second per move for G.V, while i had 25 minutes for 40 moves repeating (I added +5 minutes more that the "fair 20 minute/40moves = 30sec/move, because i've noticed that G.V at our games is using more than 30 seconds per move).
I won 4 games with an amazing way while in the 4th game when book worked i lost.

Game 1:
In this game G.V had a strange behaviour. See my notes. I won with a nice attack.

Game 2:
This game has an amazing mate combination i found at move 19, after a nice attacking game. After analysing it with G.V after the match, i indeed found it was the best move and according with G.V it was an unbelievable mate in 8! My attack was once again brilliant. The easiest game i played against G.V.

Game 3:
Perhaps the most amazing game i have played against G.V. In no other game i've ever made a positional Queen sacrifice!!! And the last mating combination is something that i really can't find words to describe it.
Simply brilliant.

Game 4:
I tried to develop in my normal way for an attack but the book destroyed my plans. G.V seemed to knew what i was going to do and played according it's book up to 7 when it played the damn Nd4!. I tried to adapt and play different but my position was not the best possible, i played some dubious moves so i lost with a nice tactic move by G.V.

Game 5:
This time i sacrificed "only" a Rook, for gaining time and trapping ArchiBishop to a1, while this time my hanging Knight wasn't captured, right this time, by G.V's h-Pawn. And alhough my King seemed very open to an attack it was me, with a nice attack that won.
-------------------------------------------

-----------------
Here are the games:

Game1:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 Ni8h6
2. Ni1j3 Nb8c6
3. c2c3 g7g6
4. d2d4 d7d5
5. h2h3 Nh6f5
6. Ag1h2 h7h5!? (I think this is a good move by G.V and i didn't like it, since it caused me many problems in my attempt for an attack.)
7. g2g3 Bh8f6
8. Bh1f3 Ag8i6
9. Nj3i5 O-O
10. Ce1g2 Bf6g7
11. j2j4 j7j6
12. e2e3?! (Not the best i believe, but i thought the time was perfect to start my attack.)

12...Nf5h6 (Very bizzare?!?! G.V rejects my Knight offer! What it should be noted here is that after the game, when i capture the Knight for G.V, then it has a +300 score in favour of black. So if it thinks it is so good move move for black, why doesn't play it?)

13. Kf1f2 Bg7f6
14. h3h4 Ai6j5
15. Cg2i3?! (Removing the defender but not a good idea i think.)
15...Aj5xi3
16. Ah2xi3 Bc8xi2
17. Rj1j2 Bi2f5
18. Qd1i1 Qd8d6
19. Nb1d2 Nh6i4
20. Rj2j3 Qd6d7
21. Nd2f1 Bf5i2
22. Nf1h2 Bi2xj3 (G.V can't refuse my new gift.)

23. Nh2xj3 Ra8d8? (The game is not here...And why not capturing my Knight??? I don't have a Rook behind after all.)

24. Ai3j5 b7b5?! (Moving some pieces to the Kingside is necessary as my attack is getting stronger after each move. But again why G.V thinks that my Knight is poisoned? I thought that there is something wrong with G.V and closed G.V at this time but when i re-opened it, it was playing the same move, and even now it does, so everything were OK. But the crazy thing is that when i'm forcing the capture of the Knight G.V thinks it is +600 points ahead. So why it doesn't capture the damn Knight?)

25. Bc1d2 b5b4
26. Bf3g2 Qd7f5
27. Bg2xi4 Qf5c2
28. Kf2e2 h5xi4
29. Qi1xi4 Ce8g7 (Now G.V is in troubles.)
30. Ra1i1 b4xc3
31. b2xc3 Cg7h5
32. Ri1i3 Qc2xa2
33. g3g4 Ch5g7 (At this moment i had only ~1:30 for the rest 7 moves, but for the first time i saw that i was winning.)

34. Ni5xg6 Qa2a6+

35. Ke2e1 (Clever move to gain time as i was sure it would check me again.)

35...Qa6a1+
36. Ke1e2 Qa1a6+
37. Ke2f3 (I won 2 moves as i played instantly. Now i had 1:10 for the next 3 moves.)

37...f7xg6
38. Aj5xi7 Ki8j7
39. Ai7xj6 Qa6f1+
40. Qi4xf1 Kj7xj6
41. Ri3i5 Cg7i7 (The rest of the game is easy of course....)
42. Qf1i4 Rh8i8
43. Bd2e1 Bf6g7
44. h4h5 Ci7xi5
45. j4xi5+ Kj6i7
46. h5h6+ Ki7h7
47. g4g5 Bg7f8
48. Qi4j5+ Kh7h8
49. i5i6 Bf8xh6
50. g5xh6 Kh8g8
51. Qj5j7 Kg8f8 1-0
--------------------------------------------

--------------------
Game 2:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 Ni8h6
2. g2g3 g7g6
3. d2d4 d7d5
4. h2h3 Nh6f5
5. Ag1h2 Bh8f6
6. c2c3 Ag8h6
7. Ni1j3 Ah6j5?! (What is this move for?)
8. Bh1f3 O-O
9. i2i4! Aj5h6
10. Kf1g2! Nb8c6
11. e2e3 j7j6 (Perhaps i6 is better.)
12. Ce1i1 e7e6
13. i4i5 j6xi5
14. Nj3xi5 (I don't think black has any defence now.)
14...Rh8f8
15. Ci1j3 Ah6g7? (Perhaps the losing move or the game was already over?)
16. Rj1i1 Bf6xj2
17. Ni5xh7! (The first firework!)
17...Ki8xh7
18. Bf3i6+ Ag7xi6
19. Qd1xi6+ Kh7g7
20. Qi6xg6+!! (I intended to play Qxi7 but the King would escape via f6, so i changed to Ag4 or this. But after Ag4 black would have many otpions (good moves) to turn the board. So i started calculating the 2 replies for black. Since fxg6 is an obvious mate for me i had to think only for Kxg6 and after some minutes i saw that black's King was history, since my ArchBishop,Chancellor and Rook would prevail. After analysing with G.V, i saw that i've missed 2 replies by G.V, but i think if any of these positions really happened i would find them. I can't compete with a computer at tactics so it's normal not to calculate correctly a mate until the end.)

20...Kg7xg6
21. Ah2i4+ Kg6h7
22. Cj3i5+ Kh7h8

23. Ci5j7+ Kh8h7 (Here when i started the Queen sacrifice(move 20), i didn't calculate the move 23...Ki8 for G.V, so if this would be a good defence for it i would lose, but as it turned out, this move also loses as there is the amazing 24.Ah6+! So i wasn't lucky after all.)

24. Ai4j6+ Kh7g6
25. Aj6h5+! Kg6xh5
26. Cj7xi7+ Kh5h6
27. Ri1i6 1-0
--------------------------------------------

---------------------
Game 3:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 Ni8h6
2. Ni1h3 Nb8c6
3. g2g3 g7g6
4. Nb1c3 d7d6 (Until now all book moves.)
5. d2d3 Bh8xc3
6. b2xc3 Ag8f6
7. Nh3g5 O-O
8. Bc1d2 Af6g4
9. h2h3 Ag4i5
10. Ag1h2 f7f6
11. Ng5f3 d6d5
12. j2j4 Ai5j6
13. Ce1g2 Aj6h5
14. g3g4 Ah5g7
15. d3d4 Bc8e6
16. i2i4 Nc6a5
17. j4j5 j7j6
18. Cg2i1 Na5c4

19. Bd2e1?? (No this is not a joke or an oversight of me, but i saw that the 3+ moves tempo i would gain is worth the risk. Of course and it's a bad move but at the end i won, so i could also claim the opposite.)

19...Nc4e3+
20. Kf1g1 Ne3xd1
21. Ah2g3 Nd1e3
22. h3h4 Ne3xc2 (As G.V spends time capturing my out-of-play pieces, i attack.)

23. i4i5 j6xi5
24. h4xi5 Nh6xg4
25. j5j6 Rh8g8
26. Nf3h4 Nc2xa1
27. Nh4j5 i7i6

28. Bh1f3 i6xj5 (G.V is the most happy computer in the world in this position. It has a +1700 score in favour of it!! How did it managed to lose? I wonder......)

29. Rj1xj5 Na1c2
30. Be1d2 Be6f5
31. Ag3h4 Ki8j7
32. i5i6+! (What is going on now? I'm winning or not? I have to analyse this position. When i played the game i was almost sure that i would be able to draw the game.)

32...h7xi6
33. Bf3xg4 Bf5xg4
34. Ci1i5+ Ag7xi5 (Now i have only 3 pieces in comparison with 6 of black side, and no Queen or Chancellor, but i've saw that black King has nowhere to go. One of the best mating net i have ever seen.)

35. Ah4xi5+ Kj7i8
36. j6j7+ Ki8i7
37. j7j8=A+ Rg8xj8
38. Ai5xg6+ Ki7h6
39. f4f5+ Nc2e3
40. Bd2xe3+ Kh6g7
41. Ag6i5+ Kg7g8
42. Rj5xj8+ Kg8f7
43. Ai5h6 1-0
--------------------------------------------

----------------------
Game 4:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 Nb8c6
2. Nb1c3 Ni8h6
3. g2g3 d7d6
4. Ni1h3 g7g6
5. e2e3 e7e5! (Damn! All my plans are gone with this move. It's a book move.)
6. Bh1f3?! e5xf4
7. e3xf4 Nc6d4! (Again a good book move. Now i have to change my strategy and abandon my attacking plans.)
8. Ce1xe8+ Qd8xe8
9. d2d3 Nd4xf3
10. Qd1xf3 c7c5
11. Bc1d2 Bh8d4
12. Ra1e1 Qe8d8
13. Bd2e3 Bd4xe3
14. Ag1xe3 Nh6g4
15. Ae3g1 Ag8h6
16. Nh3g5 O-O
17. h2h3 Qd8b6! (Nice and unexpected.)
18. Nc3d1 Ng4e5
19. Qf3g2 Ne5c6
20. c2c3 Ah6g8
21. Ag1e3 f7f6
22. Ng5e4 Qb6d8
23. b2b3 f6f5
24. Ne4f2 Qd8a5
25. Nf2h1 Bc8e6
26. Nh1i3 Ra8e8
27. Ae3c1 Be6d5
28. Qg2f2 Re8xe1+
29. Qf2xe1 Ag8h6! (Now i'm in trouble.)
30. Nd1e3 Rh8e8
31. Qe1d1 Nc6e7
32. c3c4 Bd5c6
33. Kf1g1 Ah6g7
34. Kg1h2 Ag7i6
35. g3g4 d6d5
36. Rj1e1 f5xg4
37. Ne3xg4 d5xc4
38. d3xc4 Ai6h4
39. Re1f1 Ne7f5! (Things are getting worse.)
40. Ni3h1 Re8d8
41. Qd1c2 Bc6xh1
42. Rf1xh1 Ah4g3+
43. Kh2g2 Qa5e1! (Nice move. The tactical monster prevailed.)
0-1
------------------------------------------

------------------------
Game 5:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 d7d5
2. Ni1h3 Ni8h6
3. d2d4 g7g6
4. c2c3 Ag8f6
5. g2g3 Bh8g7
6. Bh1f3 O-O
7. Nh3g5 Af6g8
8. Ce1g2 Nb8c6
9. j2j4 Ce8f8
10. h2h4 (As it is my style when i play against G.V, i never castle and play Pawn moves...)

10...f7f6
11. Ng5h3 Bc8g4
12. e2e3 Qd8d7
13. Nh3i5 Bg4xf3
14. Qd1xf3 j7j6
15. Cg2i3 Ag8e6
16. Rj1j2 Ae6f5
17. Qf3e2 Af5d6
18. Nb1d2 Nc6a5!? (I like this, too tricky.)
19. Kf1g2 (Forced as the ArchBishop could kill my Queen.)

19...Ad6b5
20. Qe2d1 Ab5a4
21. Qd1e2 Aa4b5
22. Qe2f3 Ab5d3
23. Kg2h1 Ad3c2
24. Ag1e2 Ac2xa1
25. Ae2d1 (The Archbishop is trapped.)
25...Qd7c6
26. g3g4 g6g5
27. Ci3h5! (Very well placed!)

27...Rh8g8
28. Qf3i3 Nh6j5
29. Qi3i4 g5xf4
30. Qi4xj5 Bg7h6
31. Rj2j3!? f4xe3
32. Rj3i3 Bh6xi5
33. Ad1xe3 Rg8g5
34. h4xg5 f6xg5
35. Ae3xg5 Aa1c2
36. Ag5xi7 Cf8f2+
37. Kh1i1 Qc6d6+
38. Ki1j2 Cf2h1+
39. Ch5xh1 Ki8xi7
40. Nd2e4+ h7h6
41. Ri3xi5+ Ki7h8
42. Qj5xj6+ Kh8g8
43. Ri5i8+ (After the game i saw that G.V announced a mate in 6 that i've missed it. But it doesn't matter.)

43...Kg8f7
44. Ri8i7+ Kf7e8
45. Ne4xd6+ Ke8d7
46. Ch1xh6 Ra8f8
47. Ri7xe7+ Kd7c6
48. Re7xc7+ Kc6xc7
49. Qj6i7+ Kc7b8
50. Ch6e6 Ac2h7 1-0
--------------------------------------------

-----------------------

Hi George,

I am looking over these games to see if I can reproduce the same behavior in Vortex. I can say this: it looks like the "Trojan Horse" sacrifice code needs some work. When a piece is situated so that a pawn capture would open up the j-file, it triggers search extending that occasionally finds "impossibly deep" mates, like mate in 20 or mate in 30, and most times a human can't see it.

I will examine that code.

Also, in Game 1, what do you think of 9...Nxg3+ instead of castling? Example:

9...Nxg3+ 10. Axg3 Bh4 11. Nh7+ Kg8 12. Nxj8 Bxg3 13. Nxi6 Bxe1 14. Qxe1 jxi6

Very heavy trading! Maybe 15. Qi5 Kh7 with an unclear position.

The next Gothic Chess article for Chessville.com:

Tactical Artwork featuring some tactical combinations from games played on BrainKing, see if any of yours were shown.

So is 1.f4 in Gothic Chess as good as 1.e4 in regular chess?