Glad you like it

I just received a gothic set from www.gothicchess.org, and it is excellent. I had made a set on my own, scavenging a bishop and knight from another set, and painted a board from scrap board. I painted the bishop and knight to distinguish them from the other pieces. But to have the tournament set helps to dismiss the naysayers at coffeehouses where I have played the game; whereas before some would say I made the game up to give myself some mystical advantage, now they can read the patent # and see the time that has been taken to detail the powers of the piece in the design itself. I have said all that to say to the gothic fan, make a set if you have to, but I encourage you to get a tournament style set for your collection.

Then take it and play one in the public. Shake up the FIDE diehards ;-).

ha ha ha

I think this is the game everyone was asking about. It was in Round 6 of 7, both players were 5-0 up until that point. It was one of the highlights of the tournament, a game I felt I should have lost several times over. Here it is in all its imperfection.

[Event "2005 Philadelphia Open"]
[Site "Phialdelphia, PA"]
[Date "2005.02.18"]
[Round "6"]
[White "David Stoddard"]
[Black "Ed Trice"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Ed Trice"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNB

QCKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. g4 Nc6

{This looks like a curious way to begin,
but in playing black you have to watch out
for things like 1...d5 2. Nh3 Bxg4??
which loses The Exchange in Gothic Chess
due to 3. Bxb7!! The early ...Nc6 here
extinguishes all of this.}

2. Nh3 d5
3. f3 g6
4. c3 d4

{Baiting 5. cxd4 Bxd4, which white steers clear of.}

5. Af2 i6
6. d3 Bi7
7. Bxi7 Axi7

{Black played a little too cavalier in setting up this
"Archbishop fianchetto". White becomes strong on the
dark squares with a few well-placed pawns, haunting
Black for the rest of the game.}

8. Bg2 Ng7
9. O-O O-O
10. f4 Cf6

{White has achieved poise in the center, and Black
is trying to force his way into the game with this
premature Chancellor engagement.}

11. g5 Cd6
12. cxd4 Nxd4
13. Nc3 c6
14. e3 Ndf5

{White's moves seem natural and intuitive, and Black
plays like a fox being hunted.}

15. e4 Nd4

{But how quickly small shifts in the position can occur.
Black has deliberately conditioned White to react with
pawn pushes, and White responds in this fashion again.
The result leaves White with an over-extended pawn region
on the queenside, where Black can stake a claim with
a Knight that cannot be ousted. White then is able to cause
this minor positional gain to evaporate in a few moves.}

16. e5 Ce8
17. Ce4 Ngf5

{White still has a nice chunk of real estate in the center,
and the pawn cluster in the e-f-g files resembles a
sturdy Stonewall type of formation.}

18. Ne2 Nxe2
19. Qxe2 Be6

{The trades have left Black with only 2 minor pieces in play,
unsupported in any way by the fianchettoed Archbishop. White,
on the other hand, has a superior development profile with
every non-Rook piece in an active setting. Black's last move
makes the idle threat against the pawn on a2, which White decides
to cover with the Chancellor.}

20. Cb4 Qc8

{The White Chancellor was hitting on b7, so Black dedicates
the Queen to its defense while compounding a potential
diagonal strike against h3 since the Bishop is on e6 as well.}

21. Rac1 Cc7
22. Be4 Rd8
23. Qd2 Bd5
24. Qc2 Be6

{Both sides are dancing around a bit, groping for the thread of
the game as half of the allotted time control has been used up
by each player.}

25. Qc5 Nd4
26. Ca4 Bxa2!

{Black strikes with a little "flash in the pan" combination.
It was interesting to watch White's reaction, after having
been lulled to sleep a little by moves 21 to 24.}

27. Cxa2 Nb3
28. Qb4 Nxc1
29. Cxc1 Rd7?!

{Black exchanged his two lethargic minors for a Rook and the
important a-pawn. This is still a pawn-heavy game, not exactly
favorable for Black's army comprised entirely of major pieces.
The idea is to try to thin out the pawns and keep the battle
raging on the queenside where the candidate passed pawns could
become deadly and decisive.}

30. Ai5! Qh8!

{White wastes no time exploiting the checking opportunity
on g7 now that Black's free-roaming Rook pulled itself off
of the back rank. At first, 30...Qg8 looks like an obvious
choice to prevent 31. Ag7+, but Black wants to leave g8 open
for the Archbishop. While 30...Qh8 was good, Black's absorbing
of 10 minutes of clock time to make this move was not.}

31. Ag4 Rad8
32. Rd1 Rd4?!

{It is safe to say that the battle will be waged starting
in the d-file. Punch and counter-punch soon follow.}

33. Qc5 Cb5
34. Qxe7 Ag8!

{The move I had been waiting to play has molded itself
into a trap where the White Queen must be exchanged off
of the board.}

35. Qc5 Cxc5
36. Cxc5 Rb4

37. Cc2 Rb5

{Pressure points seem to be the theme as we each poke at the
b-pawns, probing for other weaknesses.}

38. Ra1 a6
39. Nf2 Qg7
40. h4 Ai7
41. Af6! Qf8

{White is continuing to manuever as if he is the one who
tricked me into "winning" his Queen for my Chancellor and pawn.
I am, once again, forced to place my strongest pieces in
passive positions on the back rank. Inspiration strikes
as I see a way for White to "set a trap" by dangling the
h-pawn as bait, but, in actuality, when the fireworks
have fizzled, Black has better chances. }

42. Bf3 Aj6!
43. Ng4 Axh4!

{In moves to come, Ng4 looks to deserve a "strong move" annotation
since it gives White a good attack in exchange for losing the h-pawn.
But, as will be shown, this was just the tip of an inverted iceberg.}

44. Ch2 Ag3!
45. Axh7+ Ki7

{Even though pinned, the White Chancellor is still able to
extend the shield of protection to the Archbishop as it drills into Black's
position.}

46. Axf8 Rxf8
47. Kj1! Axh2+

{White finds the correct unpinning move, which would normally have
been a suicidal move into checkmate without the Knight there to
reel in the Archbishop. Very accurate play on behalf of White,
featuring a high degree of tactical sharpness. The question remains,
was Black's strategic play capable of delivering a won ending?}

48. Nxh2 Rxb2

{The endgame is purely chess on the wider board. We have Bishop, Knight,
Rook, and 6 pawns versus a pair of Rooks and 7 pawns. The scales
sometimes tip to the side down a pawn, as Rooks view pawns as landmines
in such scenarios.}

49. Ng4 Rh8
50. Nh6 Rh7

{With two short hops, the Knight has reached its square of maximum
efficiency. One Black Rook is already tied down to passive defense.
This is not the type of ending I want to be playing with only 15 minutes
left on my clock!}

51. Be4 Rf2
52. Rb1 Rxf4

{It is here that White realizes Rxb7 is not possible as ...Rf1+
will lead to a back rank mate.}

53. Ki1 c5?!

{Again, White had pressure against my only regional asset, so that
even 53...b5 would lead to a pawn lost with 54. Bxc6.
I decided to play for unclear positions in time pressure,
an old motiff that has served me well on more than one occasion.}

54. Bxb7 Rb4!

{The point of it all was to send White into a Rookless ending.}

55. Rxb4 cxb4
56. Bxa6 b3

{Let him worry about the passed pawn. My position may be dubious
if you have all day to work out the details, but I can see by the
nervous hand moving the White pieces that the pressure must be
getting to him.}

57. d4 b2
58. Bd3 Rh8!

{Dropping a pawn purely to activate the Rook, a must in the
position.}

59. Nxf7 Rh4
60. Bxg6 Rxd4
61. e6 Rd1+
62. Kh2 b1=Q
63. Bxb1 Rxb1

{I was expecting 64. e7 Re1, so I had to stop my reach and think a moment.}

64. Ne5 Rb5
65. Ng6+ Kh7
66. e7 Rb8

{There were at least 20 people watching at this point.
Don't you just love pressure? About 5 minutes for each player
remains.}

67. Ni5+ Kg7
68. Nxj7 Kg6
69. Ni5+ Kxg5
70. i3 Re8

{I would like to thank Josh Kendall for recording
the rest of these moves as we both scrambled without
writing them down.}

71. Nh3+ Kg4!
72. Ni5+ Kh5
73. j4? Rxe7

{The natural looking j4 push proves to be the final undoing
of White's game after 5 perfect round of play.}

74. Kh3 Re3+
75. Ki2 Ki4
76. Ng4 Re2+
77. Nh2+ Kj5

{The move to get out of check delivers check. My
opponent offers a draw. I saw him slump and relax into
his chair, so I think he must have believed I was going
to accept it. When I played 77...Kj5 I hit the clock with
some additional force, as if shouting "No!" The psychology
of this bore fruit, as he was very indecisive in making
moves 78-80, reaching his hand out, then retracting, then
reaching out, then retracting. He must have seen losses
staring back at him, finally tripping him up.}

78. Kh3 Re3+
79. Kh4 Re8
80. Ng4? Rh8+

{The very unintuitive 80. Kh3 seemed to hold the draw as we
performed the post mortem.}

81. Kg5 Ki4
82. Kf6 Rh3
83. Kg5 Rg3
84. Kf4 Rxg4+
85. Kxg4 Kxi3
86. Kg3 Kxj4

{Playing out the time scramble a little, but
even 1 minute is plenty of time.}

87. Kh3 i5
88. Ki2 Ki4
89. Kj2 Kh3
90. Kj3 i4+
91. Kj2 Kh2
92. Kj1 Ki3
93. Ki1 Kj3
94. Kh2 i3+
1-0

EdTrice:
I will check my e-mail when i go home. I'm looking forward to see where do i have to put the tablebases folder this time......

Walter Montego: calm down.
the uscf was mentioned without reference link which
I added in that my own very helpful way. happy easter . ~*~

There is lots to read before you see it buried in there, but it is there Let me find the link for you. Also, check your email George, new Vortex on the way.

Where did you see that...........? Do you have the link.......? I just only see statements about his new book.......

It was Kasparov's interview when he announced he was retiring from chess. He said "...I think this 'Gothic Chess' game holds more promise for players, I am looking into getting involved with it."

EdTrice: I removed the ban on you Ed.
danoschek: I went to the link, but saw no mention of Gothic Chess. I did see Kasparov's name, but it was in relation to a regular Chess tournament. Did I overlook something? Does the USCF have Chess variants as a part of it? Seems like some top rated Chess players have played Janus Chess. I'd think a Chess federation would be interested in keeping up on that. Perhaps you could show me where to look in their site?

Welcome back Ed.

EdTrice:
since the USCF is connected to the world not
only via pipeline here the url: http://www.uschess.org ... ~*~ .

tedbarber: if fencer wont do it on anotehr board he's not going to change his mind here, best to just let it slide.

To EdTrice: Why should we not hope that this contact from Kasparov should be serious? If he would be interested in 10x8 variants, he would also be interested in playing programs! That could be helpful for a handful of people.

. just hope it's not the kasparov from iyt .
polite and modest, that really does not sound like him ... . ~*~

I hope this too, but i think the possibility for this, is bellow that of having a straight flush at poker.....
Kasparov will concentrate on his books and on making more money from his name.......(Or not of course. Perhaps he doesn't want more money)

to EdTrice:

I hope the very best!

...and I did receive an email recently from (supposedly) Gary Kasparov regarding his recent retirement from chess and his interest in Gothic Chess.

I don't want to elaborate until I have confirmation that it came from him. Stay tuned

mahavrilla: Janus Chess has one very good thing going for it. Ed Trice didn't patent it! The games themselves are very similar. I started playing Gothic Chess first, and probably would not even have played Janus Chess had it not been for the events that led to me becoming moderator of the Gothic Chess discussion board or things that Ed Trice did after my installment as moderator of said board. Since then, I've learned to play Janus Chess, and for some reason the game is lots harder for me to play well as compared to Gothic Chess. I'm not sure why this is. Ed is very good at both games, ... mod edit ....

As far as having an answer to your post. The obvious major difference is having two Januses compared to a Janus/Archbishop and a Knight+Rook/Chancellor. The two Januses can work together in ways that can only happen because there's two of them. Kind of like the Rooks in regular Chess. The Bishops in regular Chess can be powerful, but they can never guard each other. The Knights can guard each other, but as soon as one moves that is no longer true. The Januses do both things, as do the Rooks. Gothic Chess's Archbishop and Chancellor do it on occasion, so it's hard for me to say for sure. It just seems like the Januses move together better. On paper the Gothic set is stronger, but that doesn't mean it's a better version, does it? As for excitement while playing the games themselves, that's a very subjective thing and I think the games are equal in that respect. You didn't ask about unpredictability. Is that part of the excitement factor for you?

mahavrilla:

Gothic is played by around 35,000 people around the world, at last count from the sales database, now in 51 countries.

There are Grandmasters and International Masters in chess who also play Gothic Chess. This number is very small compared to the non-tournament playing population.

If only Grandmasters liked Gothic Chess, that would be a very small market! Fortunately, many young players take up the game.

Some old pictures from tournaments around the USA were online here at one point:

http://www.gothicchess.org/ty.html

But, as you can see, the page became a "scrapbook" of sorts as various models posed for t-shirts and things.

Caissus: Ed Trice would be able to tell you but he can't post here for some reason.

" "The Philadelphia Open will be played February 18-20, 2005 at the Wyndham Philadelphia Hotel! This tournament is a 7 round Swiss with a G75 + 5 sec delay. You can register here at http://www.gothicchess.org/register_philly_open.html"

What happened with this tournement and who won it?
Are the played games available?

Nice combination using the power of the Janus
http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=586425&i=59

EdTrice:

1. If you have the white pieces, move the white pieces. DO NOT move the black pieces, your opponent will not like it.

2. Try and capture more of your opponent's pieces than he can capture of yours. If you are unsure what to do, refer to suggestion #1.

3. If nothing comes to mind after reading #1 or #2, then I recommend moving a Janus.

I wish to know if someone knows web site(s) with at least an embryonic Janus opening theory.

I tried that board;but Fencer will not do it.

Walter Montego: I think there is such an option...

WhiteTower: It couldn't hurt to have the option to have it either way before the series of games in a match starts. I think that's all he was asking for. Perhaps you should try the "Feature Request" discussion board, ted. See if Fencer will have a listen to you.

tedbarber: So BrainKing should be JUST like all other chess sites?!? tsk tsk tsk...

So what?

ughaibu:because all other chess sites do it.

I disagree, a match is a single event so why should it be rated in parts?

tedbarber: DO NOT PLAY 2, 4, OR 10-GAME MATCHES AND ALL YOUR INDIVIDUAL GAMES WILL BE RATED.

Pedro Martínez:What is the point of a 1 game match;anyway all my matches have been 2,4, or 10 games;and I still say ALL individual games should be rated.

Play 3 1-game matches instead of 1 3-game one. As easy as that.

He means the individual games IN the matches don't affect any BKR. The BKR is only affected by the results of the match, as a whole..

tedbarber: If you choose to play a rated game or match, then all games ARE rated and counted...I don't know what's your problem

Thad: This is also how both the USCF and all other Chess organizations do;to the best of my knowledge.

Thad: I meant when you choose to play a rated Match;you havethe option to make games or matches unrated if you so specify when you set them up. However if you choose to play a rated game or match;then all games should be rated and counted. Maybe I should have been more specific in my other messages.

tedbarber: All games should NOT be rated. I am currently playing Pente against two other players trying to hlep them improve their skills. In many of our games, I lose intentionally while showing them a particluar sequence. Clearly these games should not be rated. I have also replayed a game against a few opponent to try and understand where one of us went wrong. Again, we should be able to make these game unrated if we so choose, since these games amount to practice. And also, I have a few friends who are rated way above or way below me in certain games. The hihger rated player does not like to play these games, because, if they win, their score does not go up, but if they lose, it goes down a lot! Playing unrated allows us to play and have fun despite our BKR differences.

tedbarber: This only includes my Gothic Chess games in my foregoing message.

I still think that all games in a match should be rated. If this occurred my actual won lost draws would be 58 wins 39 losses and 4 draws;and my rating would be much higher since 6 of my wins that will never be counted or rated are against players rated from 90-300 rating points above me as opposed to only 2 losses against these same opponants;1 loss against the 90 point leader and 1 against the 300 point leader. Against the 300 point leader;I am leadining 3 games to 1. This is why I think all games,even match games should be rated. I would fell the same even if I had lost all these games;since I think ALL GAMES should be rated.

Caissus: It is a piece moving iterated like a Knight as a sliding piece. It is an example for to demonstrate the ability of my calculating method to evaluate even fairychess pieces.

Sumerian: what has a "nightrider" to do with capaches and why is his worth so low?

redsales: your arguments ar combinatorical thoughts but the average values depends on positional interdependencies (in my personal philosophy on that, of course), thus I implemented those values in Smirf.

Thank you all for your responses. They were very helpful.

Fwiffo: in a sense, they are the same strength because any singular endgame combination thereof (A vs C, Q vs A) is a draw under most circumstances. But as for which is more powerful, C or A, remarkably I have found A is better than its theoretical move values as compared to a C. However, it always depends on the game :)

Fwiffo: have a look at http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html where I have calculaed the average values (the values for C and A at 8x8 will be recalculated soon).

Fwiffo: I agree that the archbishop compared to the bishop gained more power than the chancellor compared to the rook. But since the rook has more power than the bishop to start with, this doesn't prove much.

I think the better question is, has the knight gained more power as the archbishop, or as the chancellor?