A sigh is just a sigh, a typo just a typo ...

The game could be seen (partially commented) at http://s13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php . SMIRF Beta 1.1.3 will use about 1/2 hour for its answers, because I need my computer for more than only playing.

naughtypawn:

Seeing the discussion here on which would be better, GC or CRC, I think it is going into a wrong direction.

As far as I know GC has been created to have a very balanced 10x8 starting array based on the Capablanca piece set. CRC is randomazing starting arrays among a lot of possibilities. GC targets to be played by human beings, CRC was invented primarily to create a new testing field for computer chess programs. GC is about to organize experiences into an opening library, CRC is just about to avoid such looking up knowledge to be reproduced.

Therefore I regard CRC to need more sophisticated players, mainly because of the very different starting arrays.

It would be very preferable to have both, GC and CRC, at this site. But I have to agree that questions around patented games could be frustrating, even when such patents normally are not applicatable at all e. g. in the EU.

There is a running poll on a "Contest to design a 10-chess variant": http://www.chessvariants.org/contests/10/index.html

Regards, Reinhard.

Grim Reaper:

Ed, I have thought a while of the reason you have selected that lady to represent Gothic Chess. Finally I found out, that both, Alexis and GC, seems to be 25% oversized ;-) compared to traditional 'versions'.

Reinhard.

Grim Reaper:

Well I remember that there seems to be a concept for that move exchange between computers. I neither have the latest information on that useful concept nor a working counterpart for testing. Using SMIRF with a second SMIRF would merely test the compatibility to itself.

If that concept would be working, the live playing online server could act as an in between information broker.

But having a program play online there, this will of course be andvantageous for the GC live server and the GC site, but hardly for the always there accessible programs.

Grim Reaper:

Well, I have no comparable hardware at hands. Thus I am only able to compete by brain. If such an event would that way mutating you will simply find out, that better hardware mostly would have better results.

Grim Reaper:
Bird's array should have the chancellor and archbishop switched.

One source for Bird's setup is: http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/bird.html . Is that document wrong?

Obviously ChessV and Smirf agree in the arrangement of this array. I chosed that array to be able to play a 10x8 game against ChessV with SMIRF.

Early matings would be a weakness. But also in Gothic Chess there are possible cooperative mates in 3, so look at following:

FEN: rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQ CKABNR w KQkq - 0 1

Ply Nodes all (x) (e.p.) all (+) (#) Prom. Castl. Sec.
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
1 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 784 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 25283 387 0 120 0 0 0 0
4 808984 14812 0 4019 0 0 0 0
5 28946187 907953 468 304360 398 0 0 0.5
6 1025229212 36740962 14017 11052055 17277 0 0 9.9
-------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------

P.S.: I see that the text is hard to be read :-( .

It would be good to read about the conditions then.

May be these days I have already seen the coming winner program ;-) here with Smirf. See the following two games:


[Event "Feared opponents today"]
[Site "CHESSBOX"]
[Date "2005.08.22"]
[Time "20:37:10"]
[Round "Bird's Array 1 (45 sec/move)"]
[White "ChessV Ver. 0.81 (own GUI)"]
[Black "Smirf Beta BC-1.06 (own GUI)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "R. Scharnagl"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbcqkabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNB CQKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Nc3 Nh6 {(11.01) -0.071} 2. f3 g6 {(10.06) +0.047} 3. Nb5 Na6
{(10.33)+0.565} 4. a3 d5 {(10.24) +1.088} 5. a4 f5 {(10.00) +1.097} 6. d3 Bd7
{(09.03)+1.267} 7. Be3 Bxb5 {(09.18) +1.653} 8. axb5 Qxb5 {(11.21) +1.595} 9.
c3 c5 {(10.08) +1.754} 10. d4 b6 {(09.08) +1.566} 11. Af2 Bf6 {(08.38) +1.747}
12. Cb1 cxd4 {(08.26) +2.119} 13. cxd4 Nb8 {(09.54) +1.447} 14. Qd2 Qd7
{(09.03)+1.345} 15. Nh3 Nc6 {(08.06) +1.117} 16. Cd1 j5 {(09.02) +1.384} 17.
Rc1 e5 {(08.40) +1.635} 18. dxe5 Bxe5 {(10.00) +1.399} 19. Bxb6 axb6
{(11.18)+2.345} 20. b3 d4 {(09.34) +6.702} 21. Rb1 Ni4 {(08.66) +7.034} 22.
Ai5+ Ke8 {(11.00)+7.821} 23. Kf2 Nxh2 {(09.24) +7.888} 24. Ri1 Ra3 {(09.50)
+8.290} 25. Ah4 Bf6 {(08.48) +8.374} 26. Ag3 Ni4 {(09.34) +8.210} 27. Af4 Ri8
{(09.33)+8.389} 28. Qb2 Ae7 {(09.06) +8.591} 29. Ac1 Qd6 {(09.51) +8.979} 30.
f4 Nxj2 {(09.50)+8.896} 31. Nxj2 d3 {(10.41) +8.938} 32. Qxa3 Qxa3 {(11.54)
+9.488} 33. b4 Qxc1 {(10.61) +13.16} 34. Rxc1 d2 {(11.01) +13.08} 35. Rb1 Nxb4
{(11.11)+13.10} 36. e3 Cd3+ {(12.40) +19.31} 37. Kf3 Ad5+ {(12.37) +32.47} 38.
Kg3 Axf4+ {(10.01=)+M~006} 39. Kf3 Bxj2 {(09.01=) +M~005} 40. g3 Ce5+
{(06.01=)+M~004} 41. Kxf4 Nd3# {(04.00?) +M~001} 0-1

[Event "Feared opponents today"]
[Site "CHESSBOX"]
[Date "2005.08.25"]
[Time "21:01:59"]
[Round "Gothic Chess 1 (30 sec/move)"]
[White "Gothic Vortex Gold (own GUI)"]
[Black "Smirf Beta BC-1.08 (own GUI)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "R. Scharnagl"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNB QCKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. g4 g6 {(10.04) +0.042} 2. Nh3 d6
{(10.00)+0.159} 3. Nc3 Nh6 {(09.37) +0.195} 4. g5 Nf5 {(10.01) +0.215} 5. Be4
c6 {(10.00) +0.345} 6. e3 h5 {(09.03=) +0.560} 7. gxh6 Axh6 {(10.00) +0.601} 8.
d3 Nh4 {(08.01) +1.257} 9. Bh1 Bxc3 {(09.18) +1.435} 10. bxc3 Ag4 {(10.01)
+1.561} 11. f3 Af6 {(10.02=) +1.612} 12. e4 Axc3 {(10.33) +2.412} 13. Bxi7 Axd1
{(11.18) +2.430} 14. Cxd1 Ri8 {(12.00) +2.300} 15. Bh6+ Kg8 {(10.00) +2.714}
16. Bi5 Rh8 {(09.01) +2.829} 17. j4 Cf6 {(08.28) +2.829} 18. Ce3 Rh5
{(09.22)+2.945} 19. Nj2 Kh8 {(08.03) +3.558} 20. h3 Na6 {(09.19) +3.526} 21.
Ni4 Qa5 {(08.04) +3.097} 22. Ce2 Nb4 {(08.39) +2.961} 23. a3 Na6 {(08.16)
+2.678} 24. a4 Nb4 {(09.26) +3.081} 25. Cc1 Qe5 {(07.58) +3.384} 26. c3 Na6
{(08.41)+2.738} 27. Nh6 Qg5 {(09.01) +2.877} 28. Nxj7+ Ki8 {(11.00) +3.046} 29.
Bxh4 Rxh4 {(10.02) +3.301} 30. Ni5 Nc5 {(08.33) +3.301} 31. Cd1 Be6 {(07.33)
+3.311} 32. Nj3 Rf4 {(09.01=) +4.358} 33. Nh2 Nxd3 {(08.31) +5.347} 34. Ng4 Bc4
{(09.02) +6.284} 35. Nxf6 Nb2+ {(09.22) +6.706} 36. Kf2 Nxd1+ {(10.38) +5.908}
37. Rxd1 Qxf6 {(11.01) +5.767} 38. Rd4 Ba6 {(11.02=) +6.639} 39. Kg3 Qe5
{(12.02=) +6.324} 40. Kg2 c5 {(10.16=) +6.324} 41. Rd5 Qxc3 {(12.00) +6.261}
42. Ah2 Qb2+ {(11.02=) +6.789} 43. Kg3 e5 {(10.32) +6.633} 44. Rxd6 c4
{(10.27)+7.173} 45. Bg2 c3 {(10.17) +7.304} 46. Rdd1 Be2 {(10.16) +7.679} 47.
Ra1 Qd2 {(09.01) +8.181} 48. h4 Rxh4 {(11.01) +9.604} 49. Bh3 Rh5 {(09.12=)
+9.604} 50. Ag4 Rg5 {(11.01) +10.69} 51. Kh4 Rxg4+ {(12.02) +11.43} 52. fxg4 c2
{(12.11)+11.78} 53. Rjc1 Qh6+ {(11.32) +12.20} 54. Ki4 Rc8 {(12.00) +12.33} 55.
j5 Qg5 {(11.01) +13.10} 56. a5 Bxg4 {(13.02=) +14.14} 57. Bxg4 Qxg4+ {(13.12)
+14.35} 58. Kj3 Qg5 {(13.07) +15.39} 59. Rh1 Rc3+ {(15.02=) +17.62} 60. Rh3
c1=Q {(15.18) +24.46} 61. Rxc1 Qxj5+ {(15.01=) +M~009} 62. Ki3 Qi5+
{(14.01=)+M~008} 63. Kj3 Rxc1 {(12.01=) +M~006} 64. Kj2 Qj4+ {(09.01=) +M~005}
65. Rj3 Qh4+ {(07.01=) +M~004} 66. Ri3+ Kj7 {(06.01=) +M~003} 67. a6 bxa6
{(05.01=)+M~002} 68. Kj3 Rj1# {(03.00?) +M~001} 0-1

Regards, Reinhard.

Hrqls: Those people obviously are thinking they would be busy alone.

Hrqls: It is more common that the time of people not being in vacation is rather limited than of those in vacation.

Hrqls: Well, I always assume equal rights for both side in my calculations. I have no problems with vacations, if that would be time spans without any playing activity. But playing other games while using vacancy days is signalling to the opponent simply to delay the game without reason, which is a provocation.

ChessCarpenter: Please check following calculation: one move lasted for 11 days (and more if I would have continued waiting), a game consits of about 50 moves for both sides or more, that will finally be about 1100 days a game or more, giving a three years perspective.

If such delays would be caused by vacancies, ok. But if that would happen parallel to regularly played moves in other games, it simply would be a big provocation.

It might be an idea to be recognized, that Fencer should have handled a day with playing activities no longer as a vacancy day.

Grim Reaper: "... I am rather disappointed that Reinhard did not play at the time control that was set up for the whole rest of the tournament. ..."

If I have not complied to the set time control, then it is fully ok for me not to continue those games.

Chessmaster1000: No, thank you. Tournaments should be decided by playing (including resigning).

Chessmaster1000: It is your choice to have that much games. And it is my choice not to continue playing under that time frame.

Chessmaster1000: I do not want to gain anything. I simply want to express that I am not motivated to wait that long for those simple initial moves without any understandable reason for that.

I just have resigned both games, because I am not willing to play a game which has been sceduled for 4 days/move under this circumstances.

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=903991
http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=903992

How could someone be at vacances and playing at the same time?

Do you know, who invents FEET mesurements?

http://www.chessbox.de/Wissen/matheellemass2.html

(German language text)

Grim Reaper: Sex sells ... , but is she able to play Gothic Chess (well)?

EdTrice: thank you for putting so much time in commenting that game. It is obviously that you are seeing the game from the viewpoint of a chess master. Thank you for that!

What I am learning from such games for sceduled modifying of the program SMIRF has been following: a) SMIRF actually seems to have no more that sort of crashing I reported during the last time - positive; b) Ed very correctly is detecting weaknesses on SMIRF's placing the pieces, thus I am very sure that some future tasks might help SMIRF a little bit: to rewrite its evaluation function focussing three points: 1) making the evaluation faster (three times seems to be realistic), 2) general review of the evaluation - especially king's safety, 3) adding a component for pieces mobility - which actually is missing.

After some things have been improved at Ed Trice's server (e.g. started game notation and enabled kibitzing), Smirf's Beta BC-058 has made another approach to stand a game against the GC master. But when the remaining time was getting low, it finally was overplayed by Ed again:

[Event "20 min + 5 sec game"]
[Site "GothicChessLive"]
[Date "2005.05.19"]
[Time "08:29:16"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Smirf Beta-BC-058"]
[Black "Ed Trice"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Reinhard Scharnagl"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNB


QCKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

{White is resigning seeing a mate come.} 1.d3 {(12.18) +0.147} g5 2.g3 {(11.31)
+0.314} Nh6 3.Nj3 {(12.00) +0.432} Nc6 4.c4 {(11.37) +0.445} d6 5.Qa4 {(11.40)
+0.724} Bg7 6.Nc3 {(11.18) +1.101} Af6 7.Bxc6 {(12.06) +1.451} bxc6 8.Ne4
{(12.30) +1.316} Ad4 9.Nxg5 {(13.04) +1.438} O-O 10.h3 {(13.01+) +1.322} Bd7
11.Ni5 {(12.09) +1.521} c5 12.Qd1 {(12.01+) +1.522} Cf6 13.e3 {(12.19) +1.650}
Ae5 14.Ae2 {(12.05) +1.786} i6 15.f4 {(12.07) +1.687} Ac6 16.g4 {(12.01+)
+1.687} Nj5 17.Ag3 {(11.41) +2.085} Kj8 18.Nixh7+ {(12.42) +1.358} Rxh7
19.Nxh7+ {(14.11) +1.433} Cxh7 20.Ai4 {(13.20) +1.433} Bi5 21.Cc2 {(12.04)
+1.532} Ki8 22.Bd2 {(12.25) +1.656} Nh4 23.Be1 {(12.45) +1.475} Nxi2 24.Bxi5
{(12.36) +3.235} Qh8 25.Bj6 {(12.55) +3.024} Cxh3 26.Bxh8 {(13.24) +2.526} Ng3+
27.Axg3 {(19.00) +0.000} Cxg3+ 28.Kf2 {(18.00) -0.199} Ch3+ 29.Kf1 {(18.00)
-1.395} Af3 30.Bj6 {(18.01+) -0.114} Ah2+ 31.Ke1 {(18.03) -0.697} Bxg4 32.Rf1
{(19.37) -0.996} Bxd1 33.Rxd1 {(18.00) -1.594} Rg8 34.Cxh2 {(19.37) -1.656}
Cxh2 35.Rd2 {(21.24) -1.656} Cj3 36.Bf2 {(21.28) -1.807} j5 37.Ke2 {(17.09)
-1.634} Rg2 38.a3 {(17.14) -1.997} Cg3+ 39.Ke1 {(21.01) -2.083} Cf3+ 40.Kd1
{(21.00) -2.122} Rxj2 41.Rc2 {(21.00) -2.281} i5 42.b4 {(18.11) -2.256} cxb4
43.axb4 {(21.00) -3.438} i4 44.Ra2 {(19.15) -3.549} i3 45.Ke2 {(21.04) -3.736}
Rxf2+ 46.Rxf2 {(22.01) -4.261} Cg1+ 47.Kd2 {(22.00?) -4.569} i2 48.Ra1 {(21.08)
-4.713} Cxa1 49.Rxi2+ {(21.12) -4.912} Kj7 50.Re2 {(22.16) -4.912} Cb1+ 51.Kc2
{(20.00?) -4.912} Cxb4+ 52.Kc3 {(24.03) -5.211} Cb1+ 53.Kc2 {(23.01) -5.211}
Ca3+ 54.Kd2 {(23.03) -5.410} j4 55.Rj2 {(25.04) -6.175} Ca2+ 56.Ke1 {(15.02-)
-M~???} Cxj2 57.Kf1 {(13.06-) -M~???} 0-1

to Chessmaster1000: End of thinking (mate found): This bug is nerving in Smirf for a while. It is somehow related to the cache usage. If you would restart Smirf (it remembers the game) within that position, the error would not be reproduced. So I am about to find that silly bug, but still have not been successful.

It is good to hear, that programs still are not unbeatable. (Nevertheless Beta BC-057 again will become about 30% stronger in short).

EdTrice: Sliding scale: In Smirf average exchange values are constant. But the positional influence will vary automatically, thus I have not to rebalance those values. When a piece is captured, the evaluation is not only reduced by the exchange value, it will be positionally recalculated.

Pawn Races: Smirf has included a simple estimation of passed pawn values - still not perfect.

Castling awareness: Castling is not individually analysed, it will be selected automatically by positional considerations only, independent e.g. from castling moves.

trying to teach Vortex: I am very distant to such approaches. Because it is nearly impossible for a chess master to describe what exactly he is doing during his considerations. I think that something like this might lead into a conceptual chaos. But why not give it a try? I am on the opposite way, trying to 'feel' the needs of a 'frustrated' and 'madly' working machine, to reduce the needs of its job (danger, could lead to paranoia).

to EdTrice:
I noticed, that the result of the game has been a welcomed satisfaction for those who are hoping that humans still might play better (Gothic) Chess than computer programs.

You know that Smirf still has a lot of weaknesses, where I have to develop against. With a 53K size of its engine there already is a lot of intelligence per byte, but it has to be enriched to finally become able to defeat your Gothic Vortex program or even a top player like you.

If you remember Smirf playing in November at your fine tournament, you definitely could notice the one or other improvement. But still e. g. the evaluation function is unchangedly weak.

The new beta BC-056 has eliminated the PGN reading bug, when comments are standing split at several lines. Also the search routine is no longer that overpruned like it partially had been in its ancestors.

Is your Gothic Vortex even still subject for improvements (beside of providing more looking-up information)?.

Smirf seems to have a problem to reload this game, but its PGN should be usable. (Thus one more bug found in it.)

[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "CHESSBOX-MAIN-X"]
[Date "2005.05.11"]
[Time "18:34:10"]
[Round "(20 min + 5 sec)/side"]
[White "GothicInventor"]
[Black "Smirf beta BC-055"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Sumerian"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNB



QCKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

{black resigned} 1.c4 c5 {(21.27) -0.147} 2.Nh3 Nc6 {(23.18) -0.045} 3.g3 g6
{(23.24) -0.046} 4.Nc3 h5 {(21.40) -0.024} 5.d3 Nh6 {(13.01+) -0.004} 6.Bg2
Bxc3 {(21.44) +0.206} 7.bxc3 Af6 {(21.40) +0.179} 8.Bxh6+ ixh6 {(23.03) +0.406}
9.Qd2 O-O {(21.43) +0.425} 10.f4 d6 {(21.00) +0.410} 11.Ae3 h4 {(19.49) +0.664}
12.Ad5 Be6 {(15.01+) +0.365} 13.Axf6 Cxf6 {(27.40) +0.156} 14.gxh4 Ch5 {(23.48)
+0.156} 15.Rb1 Cxh4 {(23.54) +0.574} 16.O-O Rb8 {(13.01+) +0.234} 17.e3 h5
{(21.36) +0.509} 18.Rg1 Rh7 {(12.23+) +0.620} 19.Qf2 Ci4 {(23.00) +0.475} 20.i3
Bxh3 {(25.44) -0.489} 21.Bxh3 Ci7 {(29.00) -0.440} 22.Kj1 Qh8 {(23.11) -0.048}
23.Rb3 h4 {(23.31) -0.143} 24.Rg5 h:i3 {(25.43) +1.547} 25.Ri5 Rxh3 {(27.43)
+1.272} 26.Rxi7+ Qxi7 {(31.02) +1.285} 27.hxi3 Rbh8 {(29.49) +1.285} 28.Ki1 Qh6
{(27.51) +1.241} 29.Qg1 Rh2 {(29.18) +2.213} 30.Cf1 Rxa2 {(31.13) +2.220}
31.Cg3 Kj8 {(23.58) +1.691} 32.Ci4 Qh5 {(16.01+) +M~254} 33.Cj4 Qh2+ {(29.27)
+2.443} 34.Qxh2 Rhxh2 {(31.00) +1.680} 35.Rxb7 Rhd2 {(29.20) +1.214} 36.Rb1 Rh2
{(33.14) +0.340} 37.Rh1 Rxh1+ {(35.43) +0.379} 38.Kxh1 Ra1+ {(33.31) +0.000}
39.Kh2 Ra2+ {(41.16) +0.000} 40.Kg3 Re2 {(39.11) +0.000} 41.Cj6 Rxe3+ {(39.08)
+0.000} 42.Kh4 Rf3 {(39.24) +0.000} 43.Ch7+ Ki8 {(05.00?) +2.796} 44.Cf8+ Ki7
{(05.00?) +2.744} 45.Cxf7+ Kj6 {(43.01) -4.979} 46.Ch7+ Ki6 {(43.01) -5.549}
47.Cg7+ Kh6 {(47.02) -5.549} 48.Cxj7+ Ki6 {(26.00?) -5.765} 49.Cg7+ Kj6
{(45.02) -5.649} 50.Cxg6+ Kj7 {(24.01+) -5.460} 51.Ki5 Rxf4 {(39.20) -4.644}
1-0

EdTrice: Thank you for your compliments. But Smirf still is buggy at times. There still is a lot to do.

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.

to EdTrice:

I hope the very best!

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.

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.

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).

to Pedro Martínez:

As far as I know it is an US patent #6,481,716 from Nov. 19th, 2002.

Sorry, it seems to be impossible to display such pictures directly. (Janus = Archbishop)

http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html

to schachmdmt:
Link to ChessV: http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv/
Link to TSCPGothic: http://www.xs4all.nl/~mlngveld/gothicchess/index.html
a beta link to Smirf: http://www.chessbox.de/beta.html

to Nasmichael:

That choice could be relevant not only for Gothic Chess alone but for the whole family of Capablanca extended piece set related variants.

Indeed it seems neither being simple nor to be skipped finding appropriate icons DISTINCT to existing and RELATED to the GAITS of the represented pieces. The solution Smirf provides for that problem thus avoids the usage of horse heads or bishop hats. And for newcomers additionally to those pictures it might be helpful also to use new and better names, where some already have been introduced here:

A=ARCHANGEL (ger. E=Erzengel, protecting the paradise with swords) instead of Archbishop or Janus
C=CENTAUR (ger. Z=Zentaur, because of its double nature, horse part below) instead of Chancellor

to Dresden:
For Janus Chess there seems to be a notation using J for the Janus. But we are discussing the original Capablanca extended piece set, thus we should not use the name Janus. Traditionally the English names for the new pieces are 'A' for Archbishop and 'C' for Chancellor. Because already a lot of game notations do exist, it will not make any sense to change the English piece letters 'A' and 'C', which name ever might be related to that letter.

In German language we have that problem of taking a first letter for "Kanzler", like in English for the "Knight". Just like that problem has been solved by taking an unused letter N from the word Knight, it will help to take the unused letter Z from Kanzler, which overmore would not conflict with the international English letters. When looking at a bilingual GUI it should be no problem to decide which piece is addressed by a letter. Z for Kanzler would solve this request.

A distinct second problem is to find good names for those pieces corresponding to the already used letters (A+C English, E+Z German). But they should of course be highly related to those actually used.

to Caissus:
Look on the gait of the Archbishop. It will remind me on two crossed swords. Thus I selected that symbol being for me more related to that piece than anything with a bishop. Thus A = Archangel or in German E = Erzengel (defending the paradise's entry by his sword) would be no bad idea. Also see at my symbols: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html

to andreas:
Smirf's GUI is switchable from English to German. In German it is translating the move notation using 'Z' for Kanzler and 'E' for Erzbischof. Smirf is able to read even strange notations when proceeded by an appropriate FEN string, regardless whether they are written down in English or German. That ability would be affected when chosing a letter for the Kanzler which could be regarded as an English one meaning a different piece.

see: http://www.chessbox.de/_tmp/SmirfPrototyp.png

I repeat a posting from another discussion board here:

Today Smirf is able to read even strange game notations in German and English because of its piece letters could be distinguished or are identical like K for King. Thus selecting A for Kanzler instead for Z would be a not so good selection conflicting with A for Archbishop. When viewing a game notation or a simple move notation that could lead to avoidable misunderstandings. Additionally letters C and Z are more related.

to EdTrice:
This is not necessary in this special case, because you are supporting only a maximum of 10 files. Thus it would be sufficient to 'forget'/'undo' a proceeding '1' when reaching a '0' and keep the rest of the program as it has been. This approach then would also tolerate both forms using simply '0' or '10'.

to Caissus:
It is just developing. I had been very unsure about that from the beginning. Thus I enabled my tools to understand both forms. May be Uwe's tool has not been written similar tolerant. If I would have understood how it should to be used, I would have noticed that earlier and contacted him about that.

As I have told, there are approaches to standardize encodings also of fairychess forms in the FFEN approach. Some people convinced me that the "10" form used by current Smirf would be more flexible and conform. Also I have found a similar using of FEN by Michel Langeveld at http://www.xs4all.nl/~mlngveld/gothicchess/index.html . So I finally made that decision for Smirf.

to EdTrice:
Yes, you can do it from the place I specified here.

As I have explained, Smirf and the FullChess editor still will passivly understand also the old form, but activly use and write only the new form. The change has been made as a result of a background discussion to enhance compatibility to the FFEN approach. Additionally I have noticed already similar approaches for Gothic Chess to be seen elsewhere.

andreas:
As I have explained already several times, a PGN file starting with another than the original standard 8x8 chess initial position would need per PGN definition a SetUp tag and a FEN tag. It is not good, that PGN files here do not contain that important information. Because how should Smirf know about the starting position? You have to add manually two following (not broken) lines after the other starting tags:

[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rjnbkqbnjr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/
RJNBKQBNJR w sKQkq - 0 1"]

You will also get that lines when saving a PGN file using Smirf locally or into the clipboard. By that you could see how a correct PGN file would look like.

That procedure also would work for other variants with different starting arrays. They all have different FEN strings because of their different starting arrays.

andreas:
at http://www.chessbox.de/beta.html , see Project Cronicle, 2004-Dec-10. But because of designed to become shareware, Smirf will be shrinked in its power and often suggest to become registered.

Smirf does it, even the shrinked beta version. But it always would be demanding to view its licensing screen.

well I have a close approach to all pieces even for the capablanca board an piece set. For this see: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachansatz4_e.html and around, where I derived the average piece values like used in Smirf.

Hi Walter, concerning the King: you have to keep his value distinct from combinatorical thoughts, because then his value is infinite. Imagine there would be a piece with similar gait but not to be defended like a King when being threatened.

Hi Walter, do you know my symbols for Archbishop (Janus) and Chancellor? See also: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html

Well I have seen a lot of different icons also for a Janus. And (except of the pointed dog ?) they seem all to have their inner logic. But its just the character of being a mix of others which takes those symbols out of the row of the conventional icons. Thus I have 'invented' my own more distinct symbols. I did it not for to claim that this should be a new type of standard. But it reflects the situation in which the common symbols only seem to be a substitute for the missing real symbols.