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?

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.

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.

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.

<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...

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.

<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.

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".

<*b> remove the * works fine

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

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

<>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?

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.

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.

<>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, 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

This discussion is really silly. Could we just forget all these petty, nonsensical going back and forth and getting angry. Seriously, what is there to get angry about? The game is here, we enjoy playing it, so what's the big deal.

Gothic Chess is a much more playable game than either Bird's Chess;or any other 10x8 square chess board game. Gothic Chess is balanced to the ultimate;they are not. Anyway,what opponant in any game would sit back while you wasted time re-arranging pieces;I know I wouldn't. I would "go for your throat" while you tried this silly manouver. Are you guys Criminals who would want to steal another man's legal patent? If not,why are you advising others to ignore Mr. Trice's legal patent. That is why this is a foolish argument;and I think Mr. Trice showed high intelligence in getting out of it.

No,Andreas I am sure you will see if you ask an lawyer.And if there would be a juristic basis,who should do something against it? The authorities in Prag in comission of a court of Phliadelphia? Perhaps because of a US-Patent for a game, which would not be allowed to patent in Europe? Ridiculous!

Come on! Stop this. Why do you want so much Gothic Chess leave this site? I agree to add Bird's and Modern Bird's Chess but this doesn't mean that Gothic Chess has to be removed.

Keep Gothic Chess and bring new variations too!


You said:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++
"I'm opposed to someone controlling it that isn't the true inventor of it. He's a great promoter of it, but not the inventor. The game is over a hundred years old."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++

Ed Trice is the inventor of Gothic Chess. If you disagree tell us who is it?

The game is not over a hundred years old. If you disagree tell us where you have seen the opposite or show as a game of G.C from the past.

Caissus, BrainKing.com collects membership fees using US servers, MoneyBookers and PayPal. This could be consedered as doing buisness in US or at least as an export to US. Both should comply to US laws.

Walter, I don't see why Fencer should change anything, as soon as license fees stay at very generous 1$/year. In contrary, he gets some advertisements from Gothic Chess Federation, see http://gothicchess.org/brainking_central.html by providing Gothic Chess here.

It will honor the true creator of the game, plus it should end all the bickering about patents and what not. All sites could have it. There'd be no licensing fees, royalties to pay, or granting of permission to acquire. The game itself would be free to expand and become better known without the strangling hold of a central power. If I'm to believe some of what Ed has said about him wanting to improve on Chess, he should want this and he'd still get credit for promoting the game. Plus his organization has a leg up on FIDE and the USCF and he should be able to stay in control of tournaments and associations. Of course, if the Chess playing public abandons regular Chess in favor of Bird's Chess, I imagine those organizations will really give Ed a fight for their turf.
I haven't been to a Chess club in over twenty-five years. I remember setting up the board to play Ultima and having the people there give us some funny looks while we played our game. I wonder if I brought a 10 X 8 board and set up a game of Bird's Chess if I'd get any players?

As to the name of the game, it doesn't make sense to call it Gothic Chess. Can you imagine if Henry Bird heard his game called that?

Like the US government is concerned enough about Gothic chess to make a special arrangement. . . . . ???? I doubt that even GI is that delluded.

There are treaties between our countries,but not regarding of patents.He must have a patent here.
That`s why the big concerns let license their technical inventions in e v e r y important country worldwide.

There's one thing you might be overlooking about the enforcement of foreign patents: treaties.
It is possible that our governments have worked out a deal covering this situation.

I'd say section "c" would preclude him from winning patent approval as it expressly mentions games. Obviously that's not the case here in United States.

Walter ,you cannot compare USA with the European community.Although we have in Europa a economical and political community, every country has its own laws, which can mostly enforced in the other European countries.
But between America and Europe it is another thing and I am sure if there is only an American patent,there is no legal capacity to enforce something here in Europe.

Walter, patent law in Europe differs from that in USA, see European Patent Convention:

"(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information. "

Andreas,but who will do something if a webpage like BK does not comply with the American laws?
The American authorities have no possibilities in Czech Republic and for the Czech authorities are the American laws not valid. (Would be great: American laws have validity all over the world :-) ).

Btw I think there is a difference between Czechia and USA und between Germany and France,because these countries are in the EG and many of their laws will enforced in both countries.

It's hard to imagine that he'd be able to get a court to pull the plug on BrainKing for that reason. Plus Fencer and/or others might be able to get the patent overturned if it was to go to court.
Andreas, why do you say that the rules or game isn;t patentable in Europe? Different laws, or some other reason?

Are you sure? What's the point of having a United Europe if each state has seperate patenting laws? That'd be like California having different patent laws than Nevada. Though in fairness, a lot of California's laws are different than Nevada's, let alone Utah's! :) Hmmm, well, federalism has pluses and minuses. The ninth and tenth admendments to the United States constitution deal with the powers of each state and how they relate to the Federal governemnt. I'm sure the powers that be and other interested parties are duking it out in Europe over the very thing. I suppose it's all in the details and who has the sovereignty when it all gets worked out. I'm just glad I don't have to go through customs each time I cross state lines on the way to Canada and my United States money spends in each state without having to be exchanged. Though California has the Agriculture stop point on the way back. It's been there since atleast the 1930's. I saw it in a movie called the "Grapes of Wrath".
If Ed gets a European Patent, I'm sure you'll be the first to know.

Caissus, the game rules are not patentable in Europe. However BrainKing (as well as other web page) have to comply to US laws or provide technical means which would make BrainKing unusabe by US people. For example, there is a precedent when one French web-page with nazist propaganda was taken down by court desicion, because it violated German constitution.

Walter,he can get a patent in Europe of course! But he has to register it in every single country,in which it shall have validity.
Otherwise he has no legal capacity.

Fencer certainly could do as I've suggested with Bird's and Modern Bird's Chess. The first thing he'd have to do is have a different name for the game, if only to cut down on confusion as the where and who's in charge of it.
The game itself is a good game, regardless of what name it or the pieces have. Since Bird invented the game, I think it should be named in honor of him. Let Ed promote it and make his money, but give credit where credit is due. As for the licensing stuff, I doubt if we'll ever really find the true answer about the patenting and rights because it doesn't seem like there's that much money in it. Even if the courts completely side with Ed, how much could he win? Would he really want people to not make the game and incourage others to play it?
I think this discussion board should be expanded from just this one version of 10 X 8 Chess and the Marshall/Chancellor/Guard/Knight+Rook and Cardinal/Archbishop/Equerry/Knight+Bishop to include the other versions that have the same pieces and board or close enough to it. It'd also be nice if the site had the option to play the various versions of the games. The games I have in mind are Gothic Chess, Bird's Chess, Modern Bird's Chess, Grand Chess, and Capablanca Chess. I suppose the original, granddy version should be here as well, Carrera's Chess.

Caissus, it seems like someone a few months ago raised the same question you just posed. Couldn't Ed just get a patent in Europe? Or will they not grant a patent to a game that's a hundred old and almost an exact copy of it as they've done here in the United States?

I don`t think that Fencer needs a license to run "Gothic Chess" at BK,because it has his seat in Czech Republic.
GC is an American patent and that`s why it has no validity in the European states.

Orgasnizing tournaments. Getting people to play a game. Getting the game sets made.
All of this is great, but the means doesn't justify the ends in my eyes. He could have done all of this without even getting the patent. So why have a patent? Why not do it just like FIDE or American Contract Bridge League? Have your groupd and organize you tournaments and play. Copyright the rules and welcome people to play your game.

I'm not opposed to the game. It's a great game. I'm opposed to someone controlling it that isn't the true inventor of it. He's a great promoter of it, but not the inventor. The game is over a hundred years old. As you can see from my post about how the set up and rules are identical to it, why should he profit in the manner he's trying to? Let alone impose his will upon others that disagree with him? If he's truly right about his ownership of the game, then my apologies will be coming and my understanding of fairness will need a re-adjustment.

Bloody ridiculous Walter. If you're that opposed to the game step down as the mod.

<>EdTrice (2434) 14. October 2004, 20:06:15

If you really believe what you say, send me your address. Show me a Gothic Chess set you made, and say you are going to sell sets. Otherwise, you are full of it.<
==================
Ed, the Grand Chess sets have been made for years. Perhaps you are the one that's doing the patent infringement? And surely you don't claim to have a patent on a 10 X 8 chess board, do you?
================================
>I won two cases already regarding patent infringement.
Here is a third, settled out of court just this week.

exhibit b

exhibit c<
================================
As for the rest of the post, I think I will contact the people you've listed herein and find out just what kind of dealings they're having with you and direct them to this discussion board for their opinions.
===================================
&
gt;If you don't believe me, call Derek Nalls at 580-223-2226 in Ardmore Oklahoma and ask him yourself.

Maybe you should tell Fencer he does not need a license to run Gothic Chess on here, and tell Cowboy on CowPlay.com he does not need one, and tell Frank Camarrata of HouseOfStaunton.com he did not need one, and Micheal Grey of Hasbro he did not need one.

Mike Grey is the VP of Research & Development for Hasbro, a 3.9 billion dollar per year firm, and their legal team agrees they need a license.

But not you Walter. You are smarter than the rest of the world, aren't you?

=============================
Yes, I'll tell Fencer and anyone else that'll listen to me that I don't think your patent is worth the paper it's written on. That doesn't mean they'll listen to me, though. I'm just some knucklehead out in left field with his own opinion of how history is. What do I matter to the world when someone such as yourself is trying to make it big by exploiting the system and harrassing people with lawyers and lawsuits protecting a hundred year old idea that you somehow received a patent on? Hasbro? Yeah, now there's a good place to start. They should know if you have a leg to stand on, or if I'm an idiot and should leave well enough alone. I let you know how my research goes and also what some of those people you've talked about say concerning you and "Gothic Chess"

Let's play a forced move version of Bird's Chess. This forcing of opening moves is simular in concept to how some Checker tournaments are held by requiring the opening moves to be forced upon the players to keep the game from becoming stale or over-studied. This version will be called "Modern Bird's Chess". Bird's Chess is a game made up in 1874 by Henry Bird. His game is actually a pretty good game that would be a fine substitute for this Gothic Chess that seemily has the power to distroy all opposition to it. Anyway, I propose a new version of Bird's Chess and am calling it Modern Bird's Chess. In this version of Bird's Chess each player's first four moves are determined before the start of the game. If you're familiar with Gothic Chess's set up, put the pieces in the same places except that the Queen is placed next to the King on E1, the Guard (Known as Chancellor in Gothic Chess) is placed on D1, the Equerry (Archbishop in Gothic chess) is on G1. This is slightly different from how Ed has Bird's Chess in his article sited earlier (He has the Guard and Equerry on each other's respective squares), but I went to the chessvariants site figuring Ed isn't the only authority on Bird's Chess. In fact, from this set up, you'll notice that all's Gothic Chess is is Bird's Chess with the Queen and Chancellor in switched positions! I shall call the pieces by their Gothic Chess names though Guard and Equerry are just as good as any other names. We've gotten used to the names from playing Gothic Chess and this is a Gothic Chess discussion board.
OK, with the pieces set up as shown on the chessvariants.com site, the players must make the following four moves and then may play as they'd like. C= Guard and A= Equerry.
White------- Black
1. C d1-c3..... C d8-c6
2. Q e1-d1..... Q e8-d8
3. C c3-d3..... C c6-d6
4. C d3-e1..... C d6-e8

After these moves have been made, the regular rules for Bird's Chess shall appply. (As far as I can tell they are identical to Gothic Chess' rules. Real innovation there, Ed.)

What do you think, Fencer? Could we get rid of Gothic Chess and replace it with Bird's Chess and the Modern Bird's Chess variation? I'm sure you could just put them together on one web page and let the players decide which version to play. The Modern Bird's version would play just like Gothic Chess after the fourth move and people that like the different starting position would be happy. Of course, you could just put Bird's Chess on and people could play it as is or could agree to make certain opening moves before having free choice, just as Checkers does.

Wow, that looked like fun. Come to Atlanta and have the next one :)

answers

mindsports web page and follow the links to Grand Chess.
Sorry about that