HalfPawn: SMIRF is a program that plays Chess and some Chess variants such as Embassy Chess, Capablanca Chess, Janus Chess, and Capablanca Random Chess (CRC). I believe it no longer supports Gothic Chess. He too had a falling out with the patent holder of Gothic Chess. He goes by SMIRFengine on this site. There's also a Colonel Cricket on this site.

Reinhard is the guy's name that has SMIRF. He has a website that tells you about SMIRF and some of the larger board Chess variants. One of the pages deals with assigning strength values to the pieces on a 10 × 8 sized board. A few people have different ideas about it and how the pieces might change in strength as a game progresses. This is to help one decide if it's wise to trade a Bishop for Knight. It's not always straight forward thing in regular Chess even if most people use the P=1 N=3 B=3 R=5 Q=9. The larger board makes some pieces worth less in value to others, so the positioning of the piece greatly affects its value. And then there's the newer pieces themselves. As a Queen is valued more than the two pieces it can move as, the Marshall and Cardinal can have this too.
http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html

If you can read German, you should use that site's links for that. Reinhard's native tongue is German.

HalfPawn: I had no idea there were so many variants! It appears from cv.org that there are thousands?? How can this be possible?

How can be possible that there are so many ants? LOL!


The term SMIRF is in that post as I see someone with that in their name here. Same person/program/thing or something different?

Smirf is a program that plays 8x8 Chess and Fischer Random Chess as also 10x8 Capablanca Random Chess. Smirf plays here also with the name SMIRF ENGINE.


And why all the fuss over which variant is better?? That makes no sense! There are so many to play just pick what you like and play what you want!

Instead of wasting time by playing inferior variants we must decide which are better in order to play them.....

HalfPawn: As far as I know it is only played here. I made reference to it on a Chess variants Capablanca comments page, but the game has yet to get very widely known. It's only a couple of years old and it so similiar to the other four games of this type that it might be sometime before any of them become widely played. Gothic Chess would seem to have the most current players, but things change over time.
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/capablanca.html

For some reason it's hard for the larger board variants to get many players. It's probably do to the lack of on hand playing equipment. If I ever get around to it, I'm going to make some larger Chess boards and some extra pieces. I'll still the problem of finding someone to play though. :(
That's why I play here. Regular Chess is tough enough for most people. These larger games with a couple extra unfamiliar pieces thrown in are just too much for a lot of people it seems. I like the games and think they're fun and challenging to play.

tedbarber: I just noticed that having the King and Queen side by and off center as they are in Embassy Chess makes the set up very similiar to the Queen's Gambit openings of regular Chess. The Queen cannot attack the King directly in Gothic Chess, but it is a really possibility in Embassy Chess as in regular Chess. The Kingside Bishop being further to the side now attacks Black's Queen's Pawn when it is moved two squares initially, so this will play a lot different.

I'll have to check this out some more. I had stopped trying the Queen's Pawn just recently and had been going with the Marshall's Pawn to start the game as White, but now I'll have to give the Queen's Pawn another look through. I suppose it's always a learning deal when there's no book or history on a game. For some reason I haven't tried opening the King's Pawn, even though that's my preferred opening in regular Chess. The Cardinal's Pawn looks to be trouble as it too isn't guarded when move two squares, but I'm kind of conservative in my approach to Chess. Those players that like to throw bait out there or like sacrificies can do that. As in Gothic Chess, the extra power on the board makes the King less safe and the opportunities to attack more.

HalfPawn: It is a game almost identical to this game http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=41 and was derived from Bird's Chess and Capablanca Chess. Somewhere in that link to the Gothic site has the history of the game. I went to the link and it shows the set up. Compare it to Embassy Chess and you'll see they're very similiar games.

tedbarber: Current win rates on this site for Embassy Chess:

Statistics
White won 64 (48.48 %)
Black won 65 (49.24 %)
Draws 3 (2.27 %)

Seems fairly even so far.

HalfPawn: Gothic chess used to be a popular game here amongst the chess enthusiasts. However it seems that the creator of this site and the creator of the game Gothic Chess could not see eye to eye and the game was removed. There are those that are still sadly disappointed with the removal of the game (I for one) and those that are glad to see the game gone. Probably not because the game was bad, but rather the Inventor was a difficult man for some to get along with. For more information on Gothic Chess you can go to http://www.gothicchess.com/

Walter Montego: When I get a free game.

Walter Montego: I like Janus;but seem to Lose more than I ussally do in other Chess games. Really the only Chess games I dislike are Dark Chess,Capablanca Chess,and all Random Placement Chess Games.

Walter Montego: This placement was tried in Gothic;the advantage was too one-sided for White.

SMIRF Engine: Why it does make sense to create a game for computers to play? If you are looking for real AI challenges you can try e.g. Arimaa or Dark chess. These are two chess variants where humans are still much superiour to computer. CRC in not more challenging for computer programming then say Gothic or Embassy chess.

Still I think CRC is very good by itself as a game, especially if you like Fischer random chess idea, which avoids memorized book opening play.

tedbarber: You should try this game if you like diagonal threats! Them Januses make lots of trouble. I finally started to play Janus Chess a little better, but I think I like Embassy Chess more. Hard to say as I've not played Embassy Chess too many times yet. I did teach myself a couple good little traps in Janus Chess that I'm not having much success in emulating in Embassy Chess. So I'm starting from the ground up again. Would you like to play a game or two of Embassy or Janus Chess? Or anyone else? I like both games and should give you a run for your money. I move often, but on occasion I might not get to the game for up to four days. I need a new job! 3 or 4 day time limit should keep me from timing out.

I'm going to have to challenge the SMIRF again. Pythagoras gave me some pointers for playing against a machine, but I don't know if I'll be able to impliment them into my play against it. I still kind of like the "winging it" method of my play. :)

tedbarber: I've played both games, Gothic Chess and Embassy Chess, and I'm here to tell you that the Queens start the game on the same squares in both games! Also the Bishops are on the same squares, and the only other diagonal moving piece, the Cardinal (Archbishop in Gothic) is also on the same square. The only change in the game beside the minor thing of the naming of the pieces is the Kings and Marshalls are on different squares. I'll grant you the switching these two pieces might make a big difference in some of the openings, but the play will all be the same later in the game. Least ways in a way that us humans can tell apart. And by the way, neither of them move diagonal. What do you mean by the long diagonal? Are you sure you're playing Embassy Chess and not confusing it with some other game?

This game seems like a real good game to me and is as playable as Gothic Chess is my opinion, plus it doesn't suffer from all the of baggage and feuding of Gothic Chess. All the Pawns are guarded in the intitial set up. If anything, it looks more traditional having the King and Queen side by side. The pieces are arranged in Grand Chess' order and that game predates Gothic by about 30 years.

There's three major pieces. The board has an even number of squares along the back row, just how can you place them to have balance when comparing one half of the board to the other half? Doesn't sound possible to me. Gothic Chess is no more balanced than Embassy Chess or Bird's or Capablanca.

tedbarber:This makes it unbalanced and clumsy compared to Gothic or 8x8.

WhiteTower:There is no long diagonal capability as in Gothic;plus the Queen is misplaced. This of course is my opinion.

cpaul_d2004 + tedbarber: There is already an attempt to have an english CRC page on Wikipedia. But maybe I will translate the German page myself. Then it might have been more clear, that the intention to create CRC primarily has been to keep computer chess programming interesting. Originally I had not thought about the question, whether it could be interesting to human players too. As experienced from Gothic Chess and since short from Embassy 10x8 chess of course could find interested players. But it is the lack of tradition which prevents it to be widely accepted. Mabye we have to wait another hundred years ...

tedbarber:

- What is the exact flaw in the placement of major pieces in Embassy Chess?
- Capablanca Chess is certainly inferior to CRC, as it leaves unprotetcted pieces at startup. However, CRC cannot be generally compared with Capablanca or other 8x10 chess variants, as it was created for a very specific reason: avoiding drawn games through randomization of the initial position (Reinhard, please correct me if I'm wrong)

Spirou: I also like Chinese Chess and Shogi. Embassey Chess has 1 flaw that I see;the placement of the major peices. But I do agree it is a much better game than Capablanca Random or Capablanca Chess.

tedbarber: I agree with you, it cost everyone including Ed Trice. I still don't understand this.. by the way I like to play 8x10 and 8x8 Chess :)

Pythagoras: My reason is Gothic introduced a balanced game along with th missing peice combination found in the Archbishop and Chancellor that 8x8 lacked by having only the Queen as a combination peice;thereby making a much faster game with greater Tactical and Stratigic possibilities. Be that as it may;I simily meant to point out that the feud that got Gothic Chess removed cost everyone that likes playing it. But it cost Ed Trice much more than he could gain by insisting on royalties;when availability of playing sites gets hurt. It makes you wonder whether he is more interested in profits than making Gothic Chess popular. If so he has defeated that purpose. I never meant to start a debate about the merits of Gothic Chess verses 8x8 Chess.

SMIRF Engine: I'd be glad to but I do not speak, or read, German. Is there an English link to translate it?

tedbarber: I admit it is your right to claim Gothic is superior to Chess 8x8 hence you could admit, that in my opinion, Embassy is at least equal to Gothic and that Shogi, Xiangqi are more exciting than the two first mentionned.
Conclusion: what is the meaning of those declarations? Nostalgy??

If you give the reasons for that, i can argue about it a bit.....:-)

Pythagoras: I do play,coach,and like 8x8 chess;I just consider Gothic much superior.

tedbarber: of the more inferior 8x8 regular boring and drawish game 8x8 has become;due to overstudy and overplay.

No,no,no....Just a little more respect for the game of the games would be appreciated.....!
I agree that Gothic Chess is an excellent game too, and i like it almost as i like Chess or better, but in order to replace Chess many things have to happen and many many years have to pass, if ever of course.....

My last game of Gothic Chess on this site is listed as Embassey Chess;which is not Quite as a complete or exciting a game as Gothic Chess. Gothic Chess being the best Chess game ever invented. I realize the child-like feud that got Gothic Chess removed could have been avoided if Ed Trice had not been insistant on his Patent and ignored the higher principle of getting as much expossure for Gothic Chess as possible. He would have realized much greater sales of Gothic Chess material that way;even though he would have had to surrender enforcing his patent. As it now stands he has most likely religated Gothic Chess to forever becoming an also ran competitor of the more inferior 8x8 regular boring and drawish game 8x8 has become;due to overstudy and overplay.

cpaul_d2004: The problem may base in its historical roots. Also the fact, that 10x8 chess is not played that much than 8x8 chess, might have lead to a lack of experiences compared to the claimed importance of underlaying ideas.

My arguments are more intended to enhance the distinguishability of pieces' symbols. Still symbols unnecessarily seem to be very related to Knight and Bishop, which is of no benefit for 10x8 chess at all.

See also my (German language) article in Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca-Random-Chess about CRC.

SMIRF Engine: Why does everyone make this so hard. How about using the term "Archbishop" from CRC and "Marshal" for Grand Chess, and eliminate the "C" problem once and for all?

Cpaul_d2004

Pythagoras: Oops, right, my bad. Those names are more confusing than I thought! ;-)

Kipling: i thought it was a dalmatian!

Thad: For CRC I made (once upon a time) the proposal: A = Archangel (two swords as symbol, as defending the paradise) C = Centaur (tower upon a horseshoe) with its horse nature downside. This could be seen within SMIRF or at: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html

Thad: Archbishop = Bishop + Knight and not Bishop + Rook.....

Archbishop makes the most sense for the piece that moves like a bishop & rook. Of course, using that convention, the other piece should be called an archknight. ;-)

I for one want M for Marshall and C for Cardinal. Grand Chess was made up in 1972. Seeing how no one uses Bird's names for the pieces, Guard and Equerry, and I've yet to hear precisely what Capablanca called them as he changed their names while putting out different versions of his Chess, I believe they are better names and should be the ones used.

As for the icons themselves, I agree about the Janus looking like a dog. In fact Cassius and I had some fun at the poor puppy's expense quite awhile back on the Janus Chess discussion board.
http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=34&bscx=254784#254784

Pythagoras: I agree, the pieces are very good as they are

Pedro Martínez: it would be nice to have a 2 headed piece instead of the current one. does anyone else think it looks like a dog?

Pedro Martínez: Oh no, please, do not even think of replacing with that evil-looking Janus piece, the powerful looking Archbishop....!

Caissus: Or vice versa...I'd like the janus to replace the archbishop. :)

We have now four games with AB`s/Janus : CRC, Grande Chess, Embassy Chess and Janus Chess and three of them have the same symbol for the knight/bishop piece except Janus Chess.

Would it not make sense to change now the symbol for the Janus according to the other three games?

Fencer: Your internal view to this is quite correct of course. It works on your site. Nevertheless it is very important (especially during the early stage of a new variant) to avoid misunderstandings. Isolated solutions could lead to strange formalism like in Janus Chess (which has been out of our responsibility), where its castling move encoding has been defined contradicting to e.g. the Chess960 or CRC view. Thus it is important to learn about differences, whether they have been caused by another view (which then should be discussed and solved), by misunderstandings (which should be early cleared), or simply by the stage of realisation. Of course I am also not hesitating to modify my SMIRF implementation, if there would be a need to. There finally should be an exportable compatible solution for Embassy everywhere. Thank you for showing your good will!

SMIRF Engine: I would like to correct you - the Embassy Chess implementation is completed here because the game is playable with no bugs or problems. The points you highlight are only minor issues which don't affect the game itself. Of course, they will be fixed as soon as possible anyway.

redsales: please do not forget, that the Embassy Chess implemetation is not yet completed here. Let me mention some points to this:

a) there are other piece letters used: M for Marshall (=C Chancellor in CRC), C for Cardinal (=A Archbishop in CRC or =J Janus in Janus Chess),
b) the castling moves should be encoded as O-O-O for the b-side (Queen side) castling, O-O for the h-side (King side) castling,
c) in the PGN setup X-FEN there should an 'm' be used preceeding the castling information to symbolize the mirrored King's target fields at castlings.

pawnme: me too, it beats reading..umm..NOTHING! But GC is gone and i don't miss it now that embassy chess is here, it's just as good, but patentless!

ChessCarpenter: I do not want to bore the members of this site by addressing details, which are unkown here. But one point indeed seems to need clarification. This is concerning the repeated assumption, it would have been easy there to continue a broken game. This has not been the case at all within the GC tournament. The missing of a publised how-to for such occurences has lead to unnecessary quarrels and offendings. Imagine how frustrating it is to argue through such stressing situations using a foreign language to rebuild a game, where your opponent is blocking, moreover even not having a game notation at his hands.

Why there has not been provided a documented modus operandi for such cases? I finally have worked out such a rule set and tried to suggest that at the GC forum. The result of that approach has been a threatening to be excluded from GC live, which helped not at all to have broken games fairly rebuilt.

Thad: I'm actually quite interested

ChessCarpenter: I don't care what you and/or Ed did on another site. I don't care who resigned what game for what reason. Ed wore out his welcome here long ago, but let's not go down that road. Although I am not a moderator here, I'm sure I speak for several people when I ask you to PLEASE take your discussion to an appropriate place.