After many months without Gothic Vortex (from March) i have registered it yesterday. And immediately played one game.

The game was at 1 minute per move for G.V 1.0.3 and 40 minutes for 40 moves repeating for me. I won the game with an impressive way as always(not so impressive this time).


George Vs G.V 1.0.3

1. f2f4 Nb8c6
2. g2g3 d7d5
3. Ni1j3 g7g6
4. c2c3 Bh8f6
5. d2d4 Ni8h6
6. h2h3 Nh6f5
7. Ag1h2 h7h5
8. Bh1f3 Ag8i6
9. Ce1g2 O-O
10. e2e3 Ai6j5
11. i2i4 Aj5g8
12. Cg2g1 Nf5g7
13. Rj1i1 Bf6xj2
14. Ri1i2 Bj2f6
15. Cg1i1 Qd8d6
16. Nj3i5 j7j6
17. i4xh5 j6xi5
18. Ri2xi5 g6xh5
19. Kf1f2 Bc8f5
20. Ci1j3 Rh8h6
21. Qd1j1 Ki8h7
22. Cj3j7 Bf5d3
23. Ah2j4 Bf6xd4
24. Qj1i2 Ng7i6
25. Ri5xi6 Bd4h8
26. Qi2i5 Ce8f6
27. Ri6xh6+ Cf6xh6
28. Cj7j8+ Kh7g7
29. Aj4xh5+ Kg7f8
30. Cj8xh8 Qd6f6
31. Ah5xf6 e7xf6
32. Bf3i6 Kf8g7
33. Ch8j8 Ag8h7
34. Bi6xh7 Ra8xj8
35. Bh7xd3 Kg7g8
36. Qi5xh6 i7xh6
37. Nb1d2 Rj8j3
38. h3h4 1-0

Don't forget to register to the Gothic Chess tournament: Remembering Jestone in honor of Jestone.

<>Firstly, it isn't a very interesting game,

That's your opinion, i respect that but i completely disagree.
Actually i don't even think this is your opinion, you just say that, since it is obvious you have a problem with Ed.....

>second, nobody is jealous of Gothic,

I agree on that.......

>third, his patent fantasies belong in his own psychosis, they're not a legal issue, if he's broke unlucky.

Nonsense! If you believe that, then create a Gothic Chess board with pieces and make it commercial. Then we will see if it's a legal issue.

Please reply to my message i've sent you, about Gothic Vortex..............

If you wonder who would be the best player at Gothic Chess the answer is simple: MICHAEL TAL!

If G.Kasparov, R.Fischer or J.R.Capablanca would have a 2800 at Gothic Chess then it is sure that M.Tal would definitely have a 3200!

Since Gothic Chess offers 3 major pieces,2 rooks and 4 other minor pieces, the attackes and sacrifices are endless. They happen 4-5 times more frequently that Chess. I'm too dissapointed that M.TAl isn't here. He would have shown us millions of beautiful attacks and startling sacrifices. I doubt that he would lose one single game. The man was sacrificing material everytime at Chess. At Gothic Chess would be the worst nightmare of any player.

I really don't like these kind of wars about Gothic Chess. It seems people don't like the idea of patening a game. Neither i, but a law is a law and we have to support the laws in order to have a balance and some peace in our life.

As for this new variation of Grotesque Chess, i don't think it violates the patent at all. Also i don't find anything bad that could be used as an accusation for the Chessvariants site. Perhaps is just me, as i doesn't care about any accusations.

But really, why people should always have to argue and fight about something. Why they can't agree?

Unfortunately these kind of disagreements don't promote Gothic Chess and it's really a shame as this game deserves to become as popular as Chess.

<>you need to read the directions. it is not a checkmate problem. Look at any number on the grid, then >look at the piece below it, and the "crystal ball" will read your mind and tell you what you are looking at.

I knew that of course. I would be a complete idiot if i thought it is a checkmate problem. I just set up another problem....

Except the fact that the same symbol appears at every number that it's divisible by 9, does any other pattern for the appearance of the pieces exists? As i see the distribution of the pieces is not totally random and in fact it is not random at all. I think the pieces appear each time with the same analogy. But anyway it doesn't matter much.........

Oh, i meant if you can find a way, so that white will checkmate black King with a Pawn at move 6. (We call it a helpmate at 6 for White)

And as i said there are trillions of different ways..........

This is easy:

White to checkmate black King with a Pawn at move 6.
There are billions of different ways..........

??????????
Is this a joke right?

Why the previous message of Ed Trice had been modified by bwildman?
And what was the original message?

I don't understand exactly what you are saying.

Do you mean if it is possible to play a game that all the Rooks will be exchanged and at least one side to have both 10 Pawns?

Hello and welcome back.

I have some questions regarding G.C computer world championship. Do you know why TSCPGothic program of Tom Kerrigan/Michel Langeveld, is not participating? According to his last words the TSCPGothic was improving faster and faster and even managed to win one game against Gothic Vortex 1.0.1. It would be interesting to have it at the GCCWC.

Also will the games be live anywhere? It would be interesting.

And what about Zillions-Of-Games participation?
I've played 5-6 matches against it in a cousin that had the full version of zillions(not Gothic Evolution Chess,so yes i modified the zillions file to be able to play Gothic Chess(is this legal?Sorry if not:-))), and find the play of zillions very weak. In fact it was a complete beginner. But does it matter? Chess programs was the same at the old days. Some were very weak.

Look this: Helgason,H - Chess Challenger 10 [C50]
Reykjavik, 1979

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.d3 d6 6.h3 0-0 7.Bg5 Ne7 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.Nd5 f5?? 11.Qh6 fxe4? 12.Nf6+ Kh8? 13.Qxh7# 1-0
Funny to miss a mate in one.

And do you know if any of these programs will be commercially or free available?

How a person can be banned?

A)Only one moderator (who wants to ban someone, without the other 2 know) is enough to do it.
B)Any 2 of the 3 moderators if they agree to ban someone, while the other disagree, are enough to do it.
C)All the 3 moderators should agree to ban someone.

What about if moderator M1 wants to ban X person while moderator M2 disagrees? And don't forget moderator M3.

So they should start having some conversations between them, to find a common way of thinking, for moderating this board.

And what would happen if someone between them strongly disagree with the others and start a fightning? I suggest to have another moderator to moderate them too:-)

Bring back Ed Trice!!!!!!
And keep Gothic Chess here. No alternative variation is equal to it!!!!!!

1st----------
Why not the simple 1...ixh6. Queen is lost, white has to resign.....


2nd----------
First of all this is not a legal Gothic Chess position (Meaning it can't be reached with valid play). But anyway here is my solution:

1.Ah3+ Kf7 {If 1...Kf6 then 2.Cf3+ with an unstoppable Mate in 6 (i checked every variation so i'm rather 100% sure)}
2.e4! with a Mate in 9 if i calculated correct(I didn't check everything, so a 70% possibility of corectness is my guess).
For example: 2...Cf6 3.Qj7+ Kg8 Aj5+ and the end is clear....

<>then, another thought: those are computer programs. that means, that they'll do the same >things with the same input (random functions excluded). I think that even a small difference >in computer strength would be enough to provide the sort of results you show. for example: >say that chess1.0 has an elo of 1800, chess2.0 an elo of 1850. among humans, you'd expect >results like 12-8; with computers results such as 20-0 aren't surprising.

Sorry but all these is simple nonsense!
If Progr-1 is only a little stronger than Progr-2 then a 20-0 is just impossible. And actually the results are just comparable with these of humans.
To be more specific:

Let's suppose that we have a database of computer Chess programs and a database of human Chess players. And after many games between the members of the 1st database against each other and the members of the 2nd database against each other, we establish an ELO classification for each database. And then we choose 2 programs(P1,P2) from the 1st base with ELO's A and B. And then we choose 2 humans(H1,H2) from the 2nd with ELO's A and B too.
Then according with ELO system definition, if a match between P1 and P2 has x% probability to end +w1 -w2 =w3, then a match between H1 and H2 has a x% probability also, to end +w1 -w2 =w3. The probability is the same or to reverse it: If the expected score between H1 and H2 is something then we have EXACTLY the same for P1 and P2 also. There is no reason that a small difference in computer's strength would provide different result than that of humans.

A small test shows the obvious improvements:

Crafty 8.11 - Crafty 19.15______1-19 (2 draws)
Deep Fritz 8 - Fritz 1.20________20-0 !!!
Deep Fritz 8 - Fritz 5.32________18.5-1.5 (3 draws)

All are blitz games of 40/5'+40/5'+5'.

Fritz 1.20 played with DeepFritz8.ctg
Fritz 5.32 played with ChessTiger.ctg
All others with their own books and 5,4,3 endgame tablebases and 32 MB hash each.

Are you kidding? Gothic vortex is a baby*** right now and with a clever or strong play it's rather easy to beat. Altough my Chess rating(not at Brainking) is not something big (about ~1930) i had a crushing winning score against G.V 1.0 and G.V 1.0.3, at every time control.
***Although i think in comparison with the baby PC-Chess programs of 1991-1992, it is far better. Logical since we are on 2004 and programming techniques for Chess-related programs are well developed.


The winning strategy is simple: Build an attack which should be away from it's horizon and let it conquer your "Queen side" (actually the opposite side where it's king has castled) or make a sacrifice of one or more pieces. Then the right time you should start your attack.

Here are 2 won blitz games against Gothic Vortex 1.0 (out of 40-50). The second is the most spectacular Gothic Chess game i have ever played(although blitz)! At one minute per game i had played only 11 games and i have +8 -3 =0.

Me Vs Vortex 1.0 -- 3 seconds per move:
1. f2f4 d7d5
2. g2g3 g7g6
3. c2c3 Bh8f6
4. d2d4 Ni8h6
5. h2h3 Nh6f5
6. Ag1h2 Ag8h6
7. e2e4 d5xe4
8. Bh1xe4 O-O
9. Ni1g2 Nf5d6
10. Be4f3 Bc8d7
11. g3g4 Bd7b5+
12. Kf1g1 Ah6i5
13. Ce1e3 Bf6g7
14. h3h4 Ai5j4
15. Ah2xj4 Bg7xj4+
16. i2i3 Bj4g7
17. i3i4 Nd6c4
18. Ce3e1 Bb5c6
19. j2j4 Qd8d6
20. h4h5 g6xh5
21. g4xh5 Qd6j6
22. i4i5 Bg7xi5
23. j4xi5 Qj6xj1+
24. Kg1f2 Qj1h3
25. d4d5 Bc6d7
26. Ce1i1 Qh3f5
27. b2b3 Nc4b6
28. h5h6 i7i6
29. Ng2h4 Qf5f6
30. Ci1j3 Ce8d6
31. Qd1i1 j7j5
32. Nh4xj5 Qf6g6
33. Cj3j4 Qg6c2+
34. Bc1d2 Bd7h3
35. Nj5h4 Bh3j5
36. Nh4xj5 Cd6xd5
37. Bf3xd5 Qc2xc3
38. Nb1xc3 Rh8g8
39. Nj5h4 Rg8g2+
40. Nh4xg2 Nb6xd5
41. Cj4j6+ Ki8h8
42. Cj6j8# 1-0

Me Vs Vortex 1.0 -- 3 or 10 seconds per move(i don't remember):
1. f2f4 d7d5
2. g2g3 g7g6
3. d2d3 Nb8c6
4. e2e3 Bh8f6
5. h2h3 e7e5
6. Bh1f3 e5xf4
7. g3xf4 Ag8h6
8. Ni1g2 Ni8g7
9. Nb1c3 Bc8e6
10. Ng2i3 O-O
11. Ce1g2 Bf6h4
12. Ag1e2 Ng7i6
13. Bc1d2 Ah6g7
14. d3d4 Bh4i5
15. Ni3j5 Ag7f6
16. Ae2d3 Ra8c8
17. Bd2e1 Bi5f8
18. Be1f2 Nc6b4
19. Ad3e5 Af6e7
20. a2a3 Bf8g7
21. Cg2h2 Bg7xe5
22. d4xe5 Nb4c6
23. i2i4 f7f6
24. e5xf6 Ae7xf6
25. j2j4 Qd8d7
26. Rj1j3 g6g5
27. h3h4 g5xf4
28. e3xf4 d5d4
29. Nc3e4 Be6c4+
30. Kf1g1 Rh8g8+
31. Ne4g5 Bc4e6
32. Kg1h1 Be6f5
33. Kh1i1 d4d3
34. c2c3 Ce8d6
35. Nj5i3 Cd6b5
36. Qd1d2 Cb5b3
37. Ra1d1 Cb3xd2
38. Rd1xd2 Af6e7
39. j4j5 Ni6g7
40. i4i5 Ae7g6
41. Bf2g3 Rc8d8
42. h4h5 Ag6f8
43. Ni3g2 Nc6a5
44. Ng2h4 Na5c4
45. Rd2d1 d3d2
46. h5h6 Bf5c2
47. Rd1xd2 Nc4xd2
48. Bf3g4 Qd7e7
49. Ch2i4 Ng7i6
50. j5xi6 h7xi6
51. Nh4xi6 Qe7e8
52. Ci4i3 Nd2f3
53. Rj3xj7 Rd8d1+
54. Ki1j2 Rd1d2+
55. Bg4i2 Rd2xi2+
56. Ci3xi2 Qe8j3+
57. Kj2xj3 Af8g6+
58. Kj3j2 i7xh6
59. i5xh6 Nf3xg5
60. f4xg5 Rg8e8
61. Ci2j4 Re8e2+
62. Kj2i3 Re2i2+
63. Ki3xi2 Bc2f5+
64. Ki2i1 Ag6h5
65. Cj4xh5 Ki8xj7
66. Ch5i7# 1-0

And finally what is this "odd bug" you're saying?

And i thought you know something about acronyms:)

AAAIDU = Another Annoying Acronym I Don't Understand
MPSTU = Most People Seem to Understand
YANETUT = You Are Not Expected to Understand This

AAAIDU :-)
Anyway since MPSTU you the answer is NO!
But i think YANETUT.

<>Please PM me if you care to discuss math more. I have been working on a proof of the >Collatz conjecture lately. ;-)

Collatz conjecture??? Damn! One of my 4-5 favourite problems. This is amazing. It is so simple but yet invincible to any try for a solution.

"Mathematics are not ready for problems like this" A great mathematician has said. And he is even now right!

How your proof is going..? Unfortunately i think you are trying to find a snake at New Zealand. Just impossible......
Do you have any good ideas? I wanted to try once something but the collision with the wall was inevitable. I'm 20 years old and i've just started studying mathematics/physics seriously, so maybe my knowledge is not yet capable of understanding the things are needed to even close the solution.

Anyway hope to hear from you soon, about this 3N+1 problem.

Please forgive me for the OT and let me show you the interesting game of NIM at a Gothic Chess board.

Suppose the following position at a Gothic Chess board with the Gothic Chess pieces indicated as * and with the empty squares as +, without caring for what every piece is.

+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + * + + + + * + +
+ + * + + + + * + +
+ * * * + + * * * +
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
a b c d e f g h i j

The rules for the game moves are easy:
A player can remove a piece from any file and at the same time all the pieces above that piece, are removed from the board too. (For example if he remove the c1 piece, all the pieces from the c file will disappear, if he remove the c2 piece, all the pieces above c2 inluding c2 piece, will disappear).

White plays first.

The goal is to remove a piece last, in order to win.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what game is this? A white-wins game or a black-wins game?
If white takes c3 piece(so only 2 pieces will remain at the c file),
then what black has to play in order to win?

The above board configuration can be named as 3464334643.
What about the configuration 4444444444. What game is this? A white-wins game or a black-wins game?

And what about the configuration 8888800000. Is it a white-wins game or a black-wins game? And if white plays a8?? then what black has to play to win?


These are rather easy questions to answer and if you are wonder why i'm asking them, it is because i want to see if anyone here has any mathematical interest......... In my country, well actually in my town (my country should follow this too) i see only a super-tiny number of people that having interest at mathematics. Also at the non-mathematical forums i read, people don't care about mathematics and even feel scared about them. This is strange as mathematics are everywhere and is one of the most amazing discoveries of mankind.

I'm saying all these, since this game can easily be played perfectly with some beginner's mathematics. I had thousants of wins and i was invincible with my friends that wondered how i do it. And it wasn't a solution that i saw and played it so it was unfair for them, but i had solved this game before seeing the solution.
So i invite all people and especially the younger, to come and explore the amazing world of mathematics!

<>How do they compare to Gothic Chess?
Simple. Bigger board => More tactics. (I'm refering to Grand Chess.)

It's a very fun game to play, but the 10x10 board isn't the most appropriate board size for a human to play it in a good level. If you don't care about your level of play though, and you don't care if you make many mistakes and blunders it's very entertaining.

So many games to play but so little time:-(

Caissus: "Ah this is interesting,until registering as WTO patent it is unprotected in the Europeen states?"

LongJohn: "correct, unprotected"
-----------------------------------

Perhaps he has registered already to this WTO, so it may be protected.

As i have mentioned at this site: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent
which is the "United states Patent and Tredemark office" says the following:

"U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available."

So perhaps the Gothic Chess patent is only available to US but perhaps not. It depends to the patent term extensions and adjustments Ed Trice did......

I have similar questions Walter. But i have accepted and understand the fact that Gothic Chess game, it is patented so we should follow all the things the following page refers: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent


But it is still very annoying the fact that i can't create a Gothic Chess engine or that i can't offer from a web-page a game with Gothic's Chess rules even if it is with a different name. And if i understand the following text from the above page correctly, i'm not even allowed without the permission of Ed, to play the game(actually i am allowed, until the patent owner forbids me)!
-------------------
"The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, the right to exclude others from making, USING, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States or importing the invention into the United States. (U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.)"
--------------------


But let's suppose that Ed doesn't give the permission to Fencer (the examples are not choosen to bring any upset, but for easier understanding of what i'm saying) to play the game of Gothic Chess at Brainking.
According with the U.S patent rights, Fencer doesn't have any right to continue playing the game of Gothic Chess (since Ed doesn't want this), AND ALSO he doesn't have any right to continue playing a game that would have the same rules with Gothic Chess EVEN with a changed name.

BUT what about a game with all rules to be the same as Gothic Chess and with one more, that will say for example that the game is draw after 1200 moves. This game is obviously NOT Gothic Chess, since Gothic Chess doesn't have this rule. And the game will be called GZK. I don't see any violate of patent rights.

With the same logic, why i can't create a computer engine that will play a game of JCN? JCN will have all the rules of Gothic Chess with the following 700 rules more:
Rule 1: At move(ply) 800 white player can move one more time.
Rule 2: At move(ply) 801 black player can move one more time.
...................................
...................................
Rule 700: At move(ply) 1499 black player can move one more time.
I could easily say that someone is crazy, if he would say that my game of JCN violates Gothic's Chess patent. JCN has 700 rules more than Gothic Chess.


Anyway, although this post seems a kind of attacking on Gothic Chess (Ed Trice), my intention is absolutely not this! It just getting on my nerves the whole patent thing (not patent and Gothic Chess, but the word patent). Along with Chess and Backgammon, Gothic Chess is my favourite board game and i think it deserves to have great success, and why not to have even bigger than Chess (although it's difficult)!

I wish Fencer renew the licence with Ed for as more years as possible, and i wish also to Ed to find many other sites for playing Gothic Chess. I wish also in the future, to be available many Gothic Chess engines like GC-Junior 8 or GC-Shredder 8.0 and the market of Gothic Chess will become large and i hope hundreds of web-pages to start showing Gothic Chess things. I think that this would happen. Not very fast but it will.....

Yes Fencer (and Ed) should keep it here!

My humble opinion is that Gothic Chess is the best Chess variant i have seen until now. It may be even better** from Chess due to the unexplored territories* and to the 4 major pieces that create attacking nightmares to everyone, as brilliant sacrifices are a common theme at Gothic Chess.

--------------------------------------------------
** We should define of course the "better".

* This unfortunatelly means that if we explore(meaning to analyse and play) Gothic Chess, then it would lose something from it's today's magic, but this is a common thing. It happened to Chess. More than 60% of the Chess games today (between GM's) are draws. Chess OF COURSE is not reaching it's end, but because the openings that the GM's are prefering have been analysed with the help of computers so extensively and also the fear of GM's to take a risk of a "dangerous"*** opening has lead to this situation.

***"Dangerous" = A little risky and unbalanced.

What about the game of Building you referred to a post? Can you provide a link to find the rules for it?
I Googled for "Building game" but nothing.....

I haven't tried it on the board, but i think it should be a mate in 3 for white and black, by an Archbishop on h7 and h2.

<>It's modified Capablanca Chess and you didn't make it up except for changing the initial >positioning of the pieces.

Although the change seems rather easy to make and not something different and revolutionary, it is actually a huge change! While Capablenca Chess gives to the white side a big advantage, Gothic Chess keeps both sides equal. Just like a game must be.
So it is a big deal the modification Ed Trice did, as it transformed an unequal game to something playable and fun after all.


>I'm the best Building player in the world, but do you hear me continuously carping about it, >or putting people down that don't play as well as me?

Can you please tell me what game this is? (Building) Or provide me a link to find the rules for it.


>Help from everyone else about these three. Should I ban them all, one or two of them, or >none of them? Should I stay on as moderator?

These are not real questions since i found you a very clever person,so i trust your decisions, but here is my opinion.
I think in your post about QuoUsque you are a bit unfair about him ("Fine, you're a good player of it. Why keep pounding it into us?").
He never said that he is superior to anyone else. Well almost anyone except Danoschek. But even then he didn't say it clearly, but he started calling Danoschek a chicken. That was his only fault in my opinion.
As for Danoschek i don't really read his posts as when i'm doing it i feel a little dizzy, while trying to decode his statements and all the ~*~:)0-(.

My vote is to bring back both of them, but Danoschek has to start speaking English ((Can he?) I couldn't avoid this comment! Sorry.) while QuoUsque should avoid talking about Danoschek.
As for the third person you were talking i have no idea.

Will you renew your membership here?
(It is always good and informative to have someone like you here.)

Sorry but i will start something on topic again:-)

As Ed requested i will post one nice game of me against Vortex:

Well i have many great wins against Vortex. Here is one amazing win from me against Vortex which played at a time of 1 minute per move and with 64 MB hash. The whole build of King attack is brilliant!

I have played this game when i had Vortex (I think it was February so it is an older version (1.0)) and i keeped some notes for it then, and now i have added some more details. The comments were written immediately after the game by running Vortex and seeing possible tactical mistakes from me.

Me*** Vs Gothic Vortex 1.0 (64 MB hash, 1 min/move, PIV-1500 MHz)

***I played with a clock at 40 minutes for each 40 moves.

1. f4 d5
2. g3 g6
3. d3 Nh6
4. e3 d4
5. e4 Nc6
6. Bf3 e5
7. Cg2 exf4
8. Bxf4 Ne5
9. Be2 Ng4
10. h3 Ne3+

11. Bxe3 dxe3 {This Pawn creates for Vortex the most problems. I know it will try to defend it so i haven't capture it, as i hoped Vortex will place it's pieces to defend it and lose in development.}

12. c3 Bf6
13. Ah2 Bg5
14. Nj3 Qf6+
15. Kg1 Qb6
16. b3 Bd7
17. g4 Af6
18. Kh1 {I had to play this move, as Queen and Bishop didn't actually defended g4 Pawn since e2+ is on the air.}

18...Bxj2?! {I think this is not the best.}

19. h4 Bxh4
20. Nxh4 Ag5
21. Rj4 Ae6
22. Rj3 i5

23. Na3 {What is this? I just wanted to win two tempo's for a Knight. I would not dare to play it against a human (as i think it's not good) but i wanted to make Vortex happy for a while:) }

23...ixh4
24. Nc4 Qb5
25. Qc2 Nj5
26. Kg1 Ag7
27. Rf1 Ri8

28. Rxf7+ {Now or never! I wanted to trust the statement which says that a king in the center is dead! Is it a good move? I don't really know.}

28...Kxf7
29. Af1 Ke7
30. Axe3 Kd8

31. e5 Ri3 {Black seems much better (with a Rook more) but i doubt it is. If Vortex couldn't win in this position against me then white should be at least equal.}

32. Rxi3 hxi3

33. d4 {This gradually build up of Pawns i'm creating in front of Vortex's King is the key to my success in this game. Vortex has no idea what is coming and it is really happy with it's position. It thinks it is ahead +360.}

33...Ce7? {There must be something better. Perhaps the losing move.}

34. a4 Qa6
35. d5 b5
36. Ac5 Qc8

37. e6 {A third sacrifice, this one is easier to play. Now it's over!}

37...bxc4 {I can't find a defence but to accept the sacrifice is the worst thing in this situation.}

38. Qd2 Ah6

39. Qd4! Ag8 {AMAZING fail low for Vortex! From a +300 score in favour of Vortex, it went to a mate in X for me!}

40. Cf4 Nh6 {Another big fail low, although here Vortex realised it very quickly, while in the previous case it made 30 seconds or more.}

41. d6! {There are threats everywhere. Vortex can't escape.}

41...Cf5 {I didn't expect that and i was afraid to play the next move, but actually i knew that Vortex can't escape and it was in despair.}

42. gxf5 cxd6
43. Axd6 Qc6

44. Cxg6! {I saw that my damn Archbishop controlled all black's King squares so a check from h4 is a checkmate! Also 44...Qxd6 is a mate in 3 for me and also i attack the f8 square. The game of course is over.}

44...Qh1+ 1-0

<>we have proof that CM1000 used a program AFTER he said he wouldn't. There is no >validity in anything he says to try and cover up the fact and I am certain people see this.

Where do you see the proof? Sorry but i only have to say that you are awful at mathematical logic.

>I even have copies of dialogue he used in a game against someone else to try and make it >look like he was moving himself but in fact was using a program. It was very funny.

Give the dialogue. Give anything you want. I don't try to cover the fact. I was the one that admitted it immediately and never played again with a program at Reversi 8x8. If you can't accept the fact that i was not doing it for BKR points, then OK. I understand it is difficult to accept such a thing.

<>ok, CM1000, so you mean you once (HAD BEEN using, I know English is not your first >language, I was interpreting it the only natural way a native English speaker like myself >would, no hard feelings) a program to play reversi and now you are not?

Yes that is what i mean. Actually as i am a very pedantic person:) i take every word as a fact, just why i reacted this way. Sorry if any of my statements made you feel somewhat strange:-)

>Like I said, I do not have a problem with that as you are not the first nor will be the last to >"Zentaur" on this site. What about our gothic chess games, was I playing you or something >else? I am curious. I will believe your answer.

No, i have never used Gothic Vortex (since this is the only available Gothic Chess program there is(perhaps not?)) against anyone.

Actually it isn't even working on my computer but even if it worked i would not use it of course. I say of course because it's obvious that this would be not fair. You will say then why i used my program for helping me at Reversi 8x8?

Well, i find Reversi 8x8 a game that humans can't play it well and i mean without making at least one bad move every 5 moves (That is because i (and generally we) can't use my(our) logic to play Reversi at a high level as i(we) can't find any patterns that show when a position is good or not and calculating many plies ahead is impossible, since the turning checkers don't allow our brain to do that(i know that having the corners and especially the 4 edges it's good but that it is not enough for playing good)), and since i thought that all people at this site use a computer for playing this "crazy"(for the above reasons) game, i used it too.

"I know it's a bit difficult to read the above because of the many parenthesis, but to have a general view you should ignore all the parenthesis and the statements between them."

Redsales speaks about Chess variants and not Chess.

<>but using the program to defeat an opponent in the middle of a game is cheating.

I agree on what are you saying but the above is wrong. It is cheating not only if you use a program for playing the middlegame, but also for the opening and endgame.

It is cheating if you look the opening book of Fritz for example to play your opening moves, and it is also cheating if you will use endgame tablebases to play an endgame perfectly.

I hate when i say that A+1=B and people translate/understand it as A+1<>B.
I said that i USED a program to play REVERSI 8x8 and Redsales believes that: "CM1000 admits he USES a program". USED is different from USES. And also a program on REVERSI, is different to a program EVERYWHERE.

Anyway now i've said i was using a program at
Reversi 8x8(although not deliberately), i understand it's too difficult for people to believe anything i'm saying about anything. It's their choice and anyway it doesn't matter.....

<>is that why you like to beat people with programs such as wzebra in Othello?

What do you mean exactly? I'm clever enough so that i would not feel any satisfaction by beating someone at othello 8x8 (reversi 8x8), with the help of a computer. I'm also clever enough that i don't care if i will win 100% of my games at reversi 8x8.
Since the game of reversi 8x8 is too tricky and compicated for me to play, i used a program (written by me) to play and thinking that all other opponents are doing the same. After a game i said to Steve(or someone else?) that i used a program to play. Do you think a "cheater" admits this so easy? And i've asked to all the people played with me and lost, to ask Fencer to delete all their loses with me.

>They are using legal positions but yet it is also cheating on your part

What do you mean???

<>"And even better is when a mate in X problem, has equal material on both sides or the >side that is about to mate is inferior in the material"

>No,this is not imortant - most chessproblems have unequal material! Important is the >economic image of a special theme with a surprising "key move" and checkmates in >different variants.

Neither this is important. Nothing is more important from something else. It is only a matter of taste. I'm attracted more by positions with mate in X, in which the material is equal or the side that is about to mate is behind in material. You like more positions which seem "good to the eyes" and they are pretty, other persons may like something else ...etc.

>We speak here about a chessproblem,which is composed and not about a position of a >played game.

It doesn't really matter. I don't see any difference. The only thing we should speak is about legal positions.

<>A miniature (with max 7 pieces):1.Nf5! >f1Q/KxN/Kf4/Kd3/Kd5 2.Cd4/Cd4/Cd4/Ce3/Cc3#
>Unfortunately too many Cd4-Checkmates.
>More nice if every defence of Black has another >checkmate.

And even better is when a mate in X problem, has equal material on both sides or the side that is about to mate is inferior in the material.

As for the 2 games between me against Taikoki and Gothic Vortex 1.0, i just copied the first from Brainking history but i can't open the other.
Since Gothic Vortex isn't working i can't open the games i've saved to be able to convert them to a text file format. And when i open the *.gak files with notepad, i see only crapy things:)

Anyway here is the game with Taikoki:

Me Vs Taikoki (Brainking game):

1. f4 c6
2. g3 g6
3. Bg2 d5
4. d4 b6
5. e3 Ba6+
6. Kf2 Nh6
7. Af3 Bf6
8. Nj3 e6
9. i3 Be7
10. g4 f5
11. g5 Ng4+
12. Kg1 h6
13. h3 Nxi3
14. jxi3 hxg5
15. fxg5 Bxg5
16. h4 Bh6
17. Bi4 Ah7
18. Cg2 Cg7
19. Ae5 Af6
20. Axg6+ Kg8
21. Af7+ Kf8
22. Cxg7 Kxg7
23. Axe6+ Kh7
24. Ni5+ Bxi5
25. Qi6+! jxi6
26. Axf5+ Kh8?
27. Rxj8++ 1-0

And a question: At move 26 i entered a "?" for black, since with this move black loses immediately in the next move. But black is lost anyway. So an annotator has to enter a "?" or nothing, or even a "?!".

This is easy:-)

1.Bc5+ Kg8
2.Aj5+ i6
3.Bxi6+ jxi6
4.Axi6+ Ah7
5.Qxe8++

White to play and MATE IN 16

Perhaps this is wrong but i don't have time to check it now. It comes from a game between me and Gothic Vortex 1.0 from January. I'm white.

Vortex, as always with these kind of attacks, thinks that it's clearly winning, it has even a promoted Queen more and my Chancellor has been sacrificed, but my attack is(?) unstoppable. I had analysed this position before 5 months and with best play i found it as a Mate in 16 for white.


2r2c3k/p3q1pr2/ba3p1pp1/4pPP1bA/1nP1P2N2/2N2B2R1/2P4RPP/q1BQ5K w - - 0 1

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

White to play and win!

This comes from a game of me against Taikoki. I found the move after some minutes and i had played it after spending 1-2 hours of analysis to be sure it's right. This move is not the only winning one, but it's the most spectacular and the most quick path to the win.

After black's move 24...Bxi5, i played the most spectacular move in the board but rather logical if you see carefully the position, and had an easy win. I don't know if it is a mate in X (X less than 20) since now Gothic Vortex doesn't work but it is a sure win for white.


rn1q5r/p6k2/bpp1Aa4/3p1p2b1/3P3PB1/4P3P1/PPP7/RNBQ2K2R w - - 0 1

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

Chess problem: White to play and mate in 3!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is one of the most amazing Chess problems i have ever seen.

2K4N/3PP1k1/5N2/6n1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

Since i was away from Brainking as i was on a trip at the amazing amazon river (and lost all me games by time:-( ) who is this QuoUsque??

It is obviously Gothic Inventor but why did you changed your name? And what this QuoUsque means?

<>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.

This is wrong for 2 reasons:

A)You don't have to store the solution somewhere. You just have to find it and then play it.

B)It is possible that a set of strategic rules can be found which ensure a win for one of the players or a draw for both. If the correctness of these rules can be proven, it is not necessary to evaluate a large number of positions, to obtain the result of the game if both players play correctly. (Victor Allis)
For example at Connect 4 7x6, there are about 1.6·10^13 position possible so to store all these positions we would need 4 TB, but the game has been solved and the program that plays perfect Connect 4 7x6 is only 2.5 MB.

I hope to change your decision. Why Fencer banned you from posting here? And i hope that Gothic Chess will remain in this site........

!!!!!!!!!!!! GREECE WON EURO-2004 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I was away from Brainking for 5-6 days and now i'm back. So i don't know the whole conversation and i will try to read it later. As Ed said: "This board is for Gothic Chess."
So let's start something on topic:

Since Gothic Chess positions, with KQKC has been solved, i want to know how much % are the White's win positions, the Black's win positions and the drawn positions, if we suppose that White has the Queen, and it's White's turn. And how much are all these when it is Black's turn?

This endgame is very interesting and i'm suprised to see (in http://www.gothicchess.org/databases.html) that both sides (the one with Queen and the other with Chancellor) can win by playing first and giving a check (I don't mean they win 100% if they play first and give a check).
I assume that if King is near Queen or Chancellor that the game is draw (Except of course from some rare positions). Is this true?


I would also like to ask Ed, what happened the page with the endgame statistics?
Also what happened this link: http://www.worldchampionshipcheckers.com ?


!!!!!!!!!! GREECE WON EURO-2004 !!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes it is not legal, but what about if one player offers a draw at move 6 for example, and the other accepts. HOW anyone can prove that both were agreed for a draw behind the scenes in order to make some profit from it? No one can prove it and since the rules allow you to offer a draw whenever you want it and your opponent has the right to accept it, i don't really see any illegal thing.

As for the players that stopped playing, yes it's strange and i would like to know the reason too. Was only one player that stopped playing or it was 2 or more?