Sam has closed his piano and gone to bed ... now we can talk about the real stuff of life ... love, liberty and games such as Janus, Capablanca Random, Embassy Chess & the odd mention of other 10x8 variants is welcome too
For posting: - invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu or for particular games: Janus; Capablanca Random; or Embassy) - information about upcoming tournaments - disussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted while that particular game is in progress) - links to interesting related sites (non-promotional)
Lista de boletines
No tienes autorización para escribir mensajes en este boletín. Para escribir mensajes en este boletín se require un nivel mínimo de membresía de Brain Peón.
thats amazing.Funny how we choose without thinking,at a young age.I rebuilt my first 440mag when I was 16.Then it seemed like fun....now its still fun and a living:)
Friday, October 5, 1984 I got my first Macintosh. I had been programming on the Apple IIe before that. I rolled out The Sniper, my chess program, in 1986 when I was 19.
I don`t think that chess can be "solved" anytime,but the chessprograms today are very much better than in 1989.It is only a question of (short) time that we have computer as worldchampion.
To solve chess, a computer the size of the universe is needed. There is a very famous paper on this, I forget where it is. There are more chess positions than atoms in the universe, so with "information density" such that a solution to one position could fit on one atom (an impossibility) you would need a universe to solve chess.
great strides have been made since 1989, as demonstrated in the difference between the Kasparov matches with Deep Thought and Deep Blue. Also, now that checkers is on its way to being solved, fat chance beating Chinook again! I wonder if chess will ever be solved..
I know there is a pretty long list of people who have defeated the Chinook highest level and I did see Ed's name there. But it's still a tiny minority of those who have played it.
I think people believe computers are infallible. This is far from the case. I think I am the only person to have defeated a World Champion calliber program in chess and checkers.
Programs do have weaknesses!
I am wondering if anyone is aware that International Master Mike Valvo played Deep Thought in a correspondence chess game and won! Deep Thought had 3 days to make each move. At times it could search 34 plies ahead (17 moves for each side to move).
The generic reason for popularity of variants was not only to have a game where there was a chance against the masters but also to defeat program users. Once someone even hints they have access to program then their every victory is tainted whether they use one or not. I have webtv which can't use one but if I could I would when playing another admitted program user. Then it would be machine againt machine. Otherwise there is zero chance. But the best defense against the accusation is to point to your loss record which in my case is substantial and which would never happen if a program was used. I have played checkers against people who have played over the board in Las Vegas so I know how good they are but even they can only hope for a draw against most programs,,and only then if they play perfect checkers. Chess I know nothing about..still less about Gothic Chess.
these are good points,and brings up the issue of resignations.Perhaps with matches between advanced player who use certain forms and strategies...an early resignation may be considered proper.But for an uneducated player like myself,using "homespun"strategies...it can be rather difficult to forsee the end result of a match.Granted....when the more seasoned player has eliminated the majority of the threatening pieces...odds are very much n favor of a win,but having played a great deal under this type of pressure...its entirely possible for a comeback.IMO
What Mr. E.T. said about "bookworms" in regular chess is very true, but I don't agree with his whole article completely.
1) It's not only about openings, middlegame strategies/tactics/patterns and endgames can be studied and learned similar way too, little difference is there is some creativity required mostly in combining and taking advantage of those patterns.
2) But I don't see any real difference in Gothic chess here. Of course what Mr. Trice wrote is always true until some chess variant becomes more popular, not many masters games are available and the area is not covered by computer programs with huge books yet. But then, some point will be reached when all this starts again.
3) There were some tries to avoid book openings, let's mention Fisher Random Chess here. But different starting positions don't give always, in fact they give almost never, the same chances for both parties. Just look at differences between Capablanca and Gothic chess starting positions, with same pieces Capablanca setup leads to huge advantage for the starting player, as Mr.Trice described on the way to his patent for Gothic Chess.
So, I don't see any real solution here. Of course, one could always play some new chess variant where such book knowledge is not present yet. But again, looking at some top rated players and their repertoire can substitute the books absence or accessibility and give you some advantage over your opponents.
But I think, when you play for fun, without looking for some breakthroughs, money and fame, you can have it even against those "bookworms" here and there, you can sometimes suprise them as their memorized repertoire cannot cover the whole area. But as I mentioned in 1), it's not only about openings... And of course, even when you lose, you can gain something good, at least you had some brain training etc.
And those looking for fame, tourney wins, money, well the only way is to study and play and study and play again if you think it's worth it and/or you really like the game.
Redsales,Januschess was invented in the seventies bei Werner Schöndorf+.There are no books or something about this variant. The Januschessfederation (www.janusschach.de) has his place in the western part of Germany, in Saarbrücken.The people play this game in the normal chessclubs.One time in the year there is the international Saar-Lor-Lux Open with Januschess,sometimes are grandmasters aboard,Kortschnoi for instance.Generally you can say the most German chessplayers play only standard chess.
Gothic is not based on Janus at all! Just look at the castling differences. In Janus, in one direction the king leaps 4 squares, and in the other, just 3. This is a huge difference. In fact, Janus plays like a "colors-reversed" game because when the king ends up in the Knight's file on one side of the board, it is exactly like the opposite color does in chess.
Gothic is actually more closely related to Bird's chess in 1875 than Capablanca's chess from 1925.
See the paper at:
this link for a comparison between Bird, Capablanca, and Gothic.
i'm curious, and maybe Caissus can answer this too, is there a large "book" for Janus? I'm assuming the game has been around for awhile, and in fact it seems gothic chess is loosely based on it, with the Janus and board size and all. Not to mention Janus is German chess and Goth means German. How popular is Janus in Germany? Could you give a ratio of normal chess to Janus tournaments or clubs? And how long has it taken to acuqire that status. How long before Gothic chess can achieve a similar ratio in N. America?
Modificado por Grim Reaper (5. Agosto 2004, 02:22:16)
While I was giving a 20 board simul in Kansas City in 2001, I lost one game to an 11-year old participant in the Supernationals-2 National chess tournament.
At the end of the game, I asked him his rating. I was surprised when he said it was 1340 or something like that.
I allowed a skewer of my Chancellor and Queen, loosing the C for just a Bishop. I was embarrassed by this miscue, and thought I could surely trick this youngster and recover.
No chance.
So, I would have to say this singular example demonstrates players of any strength can pull off amazing wins.
Most tournament players are "booked up" in chess. You are not playing them, you are playing every master game they have studied and incorporated into their repotoire.
Gothic Chess levels that playing field. The truly talented players shine in Gothic, even if their ratings are held back due to battling so many "bookworms".
Modificado por Grim Reaper (5. Agosto 2004, 02:12:29)
It depends. If my opponent has a Chancellor and I have an Archbishop, then the Archbishop is stronger. If I have a Chancellor and my opponent has an Archbishop, then the Chancellor is stronger :)
Look at the last game between ChessCarpenter and I. He snagged my Chancellor earlier, leaving me with just an Archbishop, but I felt I had the greater attacking chances.
The Archbishop is, in general, weaker than the Chancellor, but the question is, by how much? Would you trade Archbishop + Pawn for a Chancellor? How about Archibshop + Knight for Chancellor and 2 pawns?
See it gets complicated!
Even stranger is Archbishop + Rook vs. Chancellor and Bishop! These are made of the "same pieces" once you decompartmentalize them (Rook + Bishop + Knight) but I think the Chancellor + Bishop is stronger since you can have a "Chancellor's Vortex" occur with this piece combination.
See this paper for a complete discussion on the derivation of the piece values.
well Dano...its kinda good to see our dear dear friend,Richard Cranium,aka..Gothic Chess Pro,aka..Gothic Inventor,aka..I dont know how to pronounce that....has somewhat a sense of humor! LOL:)
Modificado por danoschek (4. Agosto 2004, 21:12:07)
how little respect some people have even for the reward of their own name *grin* ~*~
btw
the whole humbug was saved of course and is available at the known reliable source
(ocultar) Si quieres buscar más sonre algunos juegos, puedes visitar la sección de enlaces y ver si encuentras algún vínculo interesante allí. (pauloaguia) (mostrar todos los consejos)