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.
Ah ha, now I see our difference honed in upon, finally! OK, remember the original 10x8 board was 'Capablanca' which had Bishops on the d and g files, not c and h files. For this reason, I 'translated' the concept of the file name to the literals (a,b,c,d,etc) from the descriptive notation tying a piece to the back rank (rook pawn, knight's pawn, etc) since the descriptive notation would vary depending on which 10x8 board you used!
So, placing the pawns in the rook file on the 8x8 board was just transplanted to the h-file in Gothic.
I was caught in a catch-22: using descriptive notation would be different depending on your 10x8 style of preference, yet using hard coded literals should not be done by rote.
I did not re-translate the destination files when moving it onto Gothic.
But everything else was true :)
The draw I showed in 8x8 chess would be a win on the 10x8 board, moving the EXACT position as was shown.
Of course everything you said was true, Ed; I would expect that from you. :-) My point was simply that the endgame theory of regular 8x8 chess carries over essentially unaltered to the 10x8 Gothic Chess board (with K+B+N vs K a notable exception). In the particular example we were discussing, White wins against "passive defense" if there are at least two squares on the "short side" of the Pawn, and this is true on both the 8x8 and 10x8 board.
Have you ever looked at the question of K+R+P vs K+A or K+A+P vs K+R? That appears to be an interesting question and a true test of the relative strangth of the Archbishop and Rook.
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/
That sounds like a very interesting exercise and I would certainly be interested in playing a two-game match of it. Would you like to ask Fencer if he can set it up?
(ocultar) ¿Cansado de hacer varios clicks para llegar a la misma página? Los miembros de pago pueden añadirla a su Menú Contextual para acceder a ella directamente. (pauloaguia) (mostrar todos los consejos)