ColonelCrockett: It's hard not to. It is a part of the header of this board and the story of it is a big part of the reason that Capablanca Random Chess, Embassy Chess, and Grand Chess are on this site. Though I can see a reason to avoid it from the trouble such discussions caused in the past. It is still a good game, though I'm liking to play the other games more each day. I also have personal reasons not to play it.

Pedro Martínez: the game you were rated 1900+ at, lol.

ColonelCrockett: What's Gothic Chess?

Pedro Martínez: he means Gothic Chess, Pedro.

Everyone: I don't want to get on a Gothic Chess discussion again. I wasn't trying to bring up the topic.

ColonelCrockett: It is a good game. :) I'm glad it's here.

Pedro Martínez: Exactly ;)

WhiteTower: What's GC?

WhiteTower:.
.
.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ColonelCrockett: Nobody can really forget GC but with MBC around, who needs GC anyway? ;)

WhiteTower: I can't say I've "forgotten" I just found another interesting variant. :)

ColonelCrockett: Not hard to forget about GC when you have MBC ;)

I guess I should've been playing this variant since it came to the site!

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1427042

"Caissas Traumland" http://brainking.com/de/ShowFellowship?fid=303
We are looking for a teamcompetition with another fellowship in januschess,two games each player and four days timecontrol. If you have a team with at least four players and an bkr-average above 1500 please send me an pm in the next days .Thanks.

Walter Montego: All of these games are predated by Carrera's Chess which is over 300 years old. If you go to the Chess variants website it has a large page devoted to Capablanca Chess. He apparently used different sized boards and names for the pieces at different times. They show some of his versions and have links to the other games on that page too.
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/capablanca.html

I see where the Lasker comes into it from reading the page. So you won't have to answer my question. Thank you.

HalfPawn: If you set up the Grand Chess pieces and then move the Rooks up on square each, the set up is the same as Embassy Chess. The game itself was made up out of Bird's Chess. Bird's Chess is on the Gothic Chess site along with Capablanca Chess. Bird made up his version in or around 1874. Capablanca in 1920's. Grand Chess is 1972. I think Gothic is from the late 90's. I'm not sure when the patent was granted but I think 2002. Embassy Chess in 2004 no patent. It gets its name from Modern Bird's Chess. MBC. I tried to get Fencer to add that to the rules section but aside from adding Kevin's name he left the little history blurb out of it. I've never seen a Lasker version of this kind of Chess. How's it go?

HalfPawn: I believe Embassy came first (or at least I know for sure the Lasker and Capablanca versions came first). If you look at the patent for Gothic Chess (check the US Patent office website) Gothic chess references several other chess variants as well as their inventors . . . then you'll know just exactly where Gothic came from . . . very interesting reading but it's been awhile since I read it.

panzerschiff: . . . or a few misfit players. ;)

Actually a very good idea, although giving up the crutch of 20-30 move opening preparation backed by computers would be difficult for many. Even if Grandmasters were willing to throw away all that tradition you would probably still need a sponsor like Jaap van Oosterman (sp?), the guy who sponsors the Melody Amber rapid chess and blindfold tournament, to finance a big board experiment like that. Do we have anybody really, really, really rich out there who would like to sponsor a chess variant tournament?

Grand is an enjoyable game, yes. Nice 10x10, active, even-handed. I wish Masters had to qualify on 10x10 boards. Let the 8x8 be for us novices, a "training ground", so said; and when the players reach master level, let the tournaments be played on a 10x10. NOW let's see how the draw offers fall!

HalfPawn: http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=74
Grand Chess is on this site. It is played on a 10 × 10 board. It has its own discussion board on this site too. It uses the same pieces as Bird's, Capablanca, Gothic, and Embassy Chess. Check the rules page out. The pieces are set up as in Embassy Chess except that the Rooks are back one row from the rest of the pieces. This game has no castling and the Pawns can promote on the 8, 9, or 10th row and can only promote to a piece that your opponent has captured from you. With the Rooks being able to move from the start of the game it has a different play to it than the other large games using these pieces. With all the other pieces up on the second and third rows it makes the play seem like a 10 × 8. It's a pretty good game. The back rows aren't too important later in the game. Early in the game they come handy. Besides positioning your Rooks, you can sometimes use the Cardinal to line it with a Bishop. Your King has space to run and he needs it. I'm fairly sure there are no quick checkmates in this game as there are in the others.
Fencer has added a link in the rules page to the inventor's page.

HalfPawn: The answer is yes. Chess Variants has it. I'm not sure how their deal works though. I've not joined their site.
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/presets/embassy.html

The game is only two years old. If Fencer had not added it to this site I have the feeling it would still be an obscure game in Kevin's mind not being played anywhere. I'm glad it's here. It's a good game.

Pedro Martínez: lol, pedro.

Pedro Martínez: LOL

HalfPawn: The US Embassy in Prague sometimes plays very nasty games.

HalfPawn: Now why would anyone want to know that? Since the answer is easily "googleable", isn't Embassy well-supported and playable here as it is?

HalfPawn: Different people - different opinions. But I experienced, what has happened, and I know, what I have suggested. A lot of postings there are not trying to solve any problem, but instead to establish a one-sided view, which seems to be more important to them, than to describe a how-to continue. I hope you have also seen there my first posting from Dec 31 2005, and how it has been ignored without establishing any alternative. In my opinion the organizer of that event should have been more interested to describe a workable way out of that conflict much earlier than to simply put pressure on me. Thus for me it looked like that solving the problem has had no priority, but instead to make a "bad boy" out of me.

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13693&trnst=0

[Tournament description added ... WQ :}

HalfPawn: There are detailed answers on that somewhere here. But again in short: it has been impossible to reconstruct a broken game exactly as it has been when breaking, e.g. the timing is hardly to reset. And you cannot do it alone without the cooperation of your opponent. My opponent has not been willing to cooperate as need be, especially when the reconstruction had failed because of an input error, which unfortunately cannot be corrected simply at that online server. Having had the choice to celebrate endless quarrels or to terminate, I chosed to avoid additional quarrels. I also tried to propose a modus operandi how to handle such situations. But it has been ignored. Instead pressure has been put on me. Because of that has been not helpful at all to rebuild broken games, I left the tournament.

HalfPawn: My statement has not been directed against you personally. Nevertheless I am angry about that silly rumouring there.

ChessV and SMIRF are currently able to be downloaded and tested. So everybody could investigate pros and cons of both programs. Having matching feedbacks would be fine.

HalfPawn: Probably not. Smirf has got some little cosmetic changes in its editor view, the engine itself is nearly the same now, but has been compiled with MS VStudio instead of the Borland Builder. ChessV already has been changed during the tournament. Seeing its new release date there must have been some additional changes, but I do not know their details.

Watching the discussions at the GothicChess forum I am shaking my head, seeing what is said about imputed reasons for me to quit. I have explained it sufficiently, but some people insist in their wrong view. So what?!

Two examples of SMIRF's actual strength:

[Event "10x8 Bird's Array Test (20 sec/move)"]
[Site "CHESSBOX-BIG-XP"]
[Date "2006.02.08"]
[Time "09:09:22"]
[Round "1"]
[White "ChessV (Version 2006-Jan-13)"]
[Black "SMIRF (Version MS-150)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "RS"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbcqkabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/
RNBCQKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. Nc3 g6 {(09.02=) -0.205} 2. Nb5 Na6
{(09.02=) +0.197} 3. f4 d6 {(10.00) +0.695} 4. a3 Qxb5 {(08.01=) +3.973} 5. Ae3
Nh6 {(08.04) +4.605} 6. a4 Qh5 {(08.02) +4.947} 7. h3 Nb4 {(07.35) +5.115} 8.
c4 Ng4 {(08.01) +6.758} 9. a5 Nh2+ {(09.00) +9.285} 10. Kf2 Nxj1 {(07.49)
+9.365} 11. Nj3 Af6 {(08.02=) +8.963} 12. g4 Qj5 {(08.02=) +9.252} 13. a6 c6
{(07.42) +9.055} 14. axb7 Cxb7 {(08.01) +9.727} 15. b3 Axa1 {(07.15) +15.65}
16. Ba3 Qj6+ {(08.02=) +16.49} 17. h4 Ad4 {(08.04=) +16.41} 18. Be4 Axb3
{(07.03) +16.82} 19. Cb1 Ac5 {(08.01) +16.57} 20. Axc5 Cxc5 {(09.00) +15.95}
21. d3 Bd4+ {(08.01) +18.19} 22. Kg2 Qi6 {(08.03) +18.19} 23. e3 Qxi2+ {(07.31)
+20.28} 24. Kg3 Bxg4 {(06.03=) +M~005} 25. exd4 Ch5# {(03.00?) +M~001} 0-1

[Event "Janus Chess Test (20 sec/move)"]
[Site "CHESSBOX-BIG-XP"]
[Date "2006.02.08"]
[Time "10:24:53"]
[Round "2"]
[White "ChessV (Version 2006-Jan-13)"]
[Black "SMIRF (Version MS-150)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "RS"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rjnbkqbnjr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/
RJNBKQBNJR w sKQkq - 0 1"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. e3 e6 {(09.02=) -0.143} 2. Bf3 Nd6
{(09.01) +0.049} 3. Ja3 h6 {(09.01) +0.162} 4. Nd3 Ja6 {(09.00) +0.139} 5. Ng3
Be7 {(09.00) +0.451} 6. Jb1 Nc4 {(08.03=) +0.750} 7. Be2 d5 {(08.14) +0.785} 8.
Ne5 Bh7 {(10.00) +0.779} 9. e4 Bxe4 {(09.15) +1.113} 10. Nxe4 Jxe4 {(10.00)
+0.621} 11. Nxc4 dxc4 {(09.20) +0.514} 12. c3 Jxb1 {(11.00) +1.080} 13. Rxb1
Ni6 {(10.18) +0.932} 14. b3 Qi8 {(09.34) +1.410} 15. Rc1 Ba3 {(09.03) +1.184}
16. Bxc4 Jxc4 {(10.01) +2.459} 17. Qxc4 Bxc1 {(11.00) +2.348} 18. Qb5+ Kf8
{(11.00) +3.012} 19. Qb4+ Kg8 {(11.00) +4.453} 20. a3 Rd8 {(10.09) +7.594} 21.
a4 Bxd2+ {(08.00?) +M~???} 22. Ke2 Qd3+ {(04.00?) +M~???} 23. Kd1 Bxc3+
{(03.00?) +M~???} 24. Kc1 Qd1# {(02.00?) +M~001} 0-1

SMIRF could be downloaded at: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html

Regards, Reinhard.

Hello friends of Chess960, 10x8 CRC and other FullChess games,

the new SMIRF Beta has been cleaned from old ballast, and its editing surface hopefully has been redesigned a little bit more clearly. Moreover now a STL DLL is no longer used in this package.

Download could be done via http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html .

The engine itself has not been changed much. But for those, who have missed the last updates, progresses in 10x8 chess nevertheless should be noticable.

Best Regards, Reinhard.

HalfPawn: It seems like GI answered all of your questions there . . . If you have any others just ask over there or PM me.

I've tried it in one game so far. I did it wrong, or it's not the way for White to start. My opponent accepted the gambit and I've been covering my tracks since then. I thought his move after the check wasn't the best one for him, but he's taken the initiative in any case.

Walter Montego: Not time to reply to all other but the last was goooood! "By the way, you are going to start moving next Monday? You can't develope them if you don't move them. :)"
<----Some smileys here/just enable emoticons to see them, i know you hate emoticons and have them disabled but anyway.....

Pythagoras: On what do you base this developing pieces is easier in Gothic Chess than Embassy Chess? I don't have a problem getting my pieces out in Embassy Chess. If anything I've found it slightly easier than in Gothic Chess. The Cardinal and Marshall can both move as Knights from the start of the game and not step on each other. Not so in Gothic Chess. Embassy Chess seems to move fast too. Lots of trouble right from the start. It's going to take me awhile to figure what's going if I ever do. By the way, you are going to start moving next Monday? You can't develope them if you don't move them. :)

Walter Montego: the name isn't "Crickett".

HalfPawn: Why are some games balanced while others aren't?

Because in some games there is a line that makes a player(1st or 2nd player, usually the 1st due to the tempo advantage) to have the advantage. Another reason or actually a definition to the word balanced, is the symmetry a game has. Another one is the ability to develop easily the pieces. Another is the variety of opening lines available to black after white plays. For example at Bird's Chess, after white's Ch3 black is restricted to play only 3 moves or else it would lose....
Embassy Chess somes close to Gothic Chess in all these areas but fails in the ease of developing the pieces. With this i don't say that at Embassy Chess is difficult to develop the pieces, but only that at Gothic it is easier.....

Walter Montego: Thank you for the information;I hope it helps me;since Ed is so obstinate about his silly patent and is destroying a good game because of it. I have tried his live site and there are too many problems with his Java set-up.