ColonelCrockett:
1st: What Champion of blitz time level means? Where is the data for this?

2nd: Even if someone is the champion of at a specific time level by playing on his own, that doesn't imply that he doesn't cheat at another time level by using a computer. Of course that also doesn't imply that he cheats at another time level.

Pythagoras: Very happy to oblige with answers to very thoughtful questions.

1st - Blitz on Gothic Chess Live = usually a time limit of around ten minutes per game (with a 5-12 second delay). this is not enough time to cheat (successfully, anyway) and the games are all databased by the site.

2nd - I was working on the premise that someone cheats because they have to . . . if you can beat the best computer programs at Gothic . . . why use them to cheat? that makes no sense.

ColonelCrockett: if you can beat the best computer programs at Gothic...why use them to cheat? that makes no sense.

And why do you think he beats the best programs at Gothic Chess? At GothicChessLive where you say he is the champion, he doesn't beat the top computer Gothic Chess programs, but only humans.....


Also 1-2 years ago he made the statement:

"I am rated 2331 at Gothic Chess, and in fast games (1 min per move or less) the program outperforms me without too much difficulty."

Note that he refers to Gothic Vortex with "the program".
Also note that at GothicChessLive the games have a time level of much less of 1 minute per move so this is an additional advantage for the computer.
So your statement that i quoted appears to be completely false....!

Pythagoras: You know, I've heard it said in plenty of places that machines have an advantage in speed Chess. I'm think what Colonel Crocket is also doing is having the guy using the computer to help with the moves also having to enter them into the online site. This would cost some of the advantage afforded the machine because of the human part of entering the move. If the moves are entered directly into the machine and then displyed immediately it seems the machines almost always win in speed Chess no matter how strong the opponent if they're good programs.

Pythagoras: Oh, right, Ed wasn't at the top. My bad. So maybe he wasn't the strongest player here. I leave it to you to decide who you think it was.

SMIRF Engine, I respect that your program plays/played here and that you use(d) it openly. We know you were using games played here to test it and find out its strengths and weaknesses. I don't think anyone else begrudges you for doing that either. Keep up the good work. :-)

HalfPawn: You are showing a lot of naivete and a lack of the history of that game and its "inventor" on this site. Perhaps you should get to know Ed a little better and ask him yourself.

HalfPawn: In the meantime, are you up for a game or two of Embassy Chess?

GOD: Well Ed Trice played the highest level of Gothic Chess above all others in my opinion at Brainking, considering of course ONLY the games i have seen here....

I note again of course that this doesn't mean he should be first in the rating list. Also that this doesn't mean he shouldn't be first in the rating list. The first in the list comes from the definition and execution of the Brainking's formula.


Also note that:
If someone doesn't know to explain his moves while his moves are on a high level, this would imply cheating from his part.
But if someone does know to explain his moves while his moves are on a high level, this would NOT imply a NON-cheating from his part.
With other words: He could cheat even if he can play at a high level and explain the moves he played....
Note also that i don't speak about Ed or another specific person.....

Pythagoras: Why do you keep addressing your replies to GOD?

Because at the beginning of this conversation i thought HalfPawn has been evolved into one of the 12 Gods of Olympus!
The one with the winged sandals if you know....
But his last post perhaps made me to change slightly my opinion although i'm not convinced yet.....

Pythagoras: Mercury?

Walter Montego: Hermes.

Pedro Martínez: Thanks. That's interesting! I know little of the Olympus Gods. Hermes and Mercury aren't the same God? I guess I got confused with Romans and Greeks, eh?
Zeus and Jupiter and all.

I used to bank at Mercury Savings years ago and they used to pitch a mutual fund called "Hermes Fund". I guess I missed the evolution that Pythagoras noted. :)

Anyways, if anyone else would like a game or two of Embassy Chess, just let me know.

Edit: Or Janus Chess

HalfPawn: Kindly delete that post there, please. You make several untruths (some about me!) in it. Perhaps after you get the full picture, you can repost an updated version of it in which I don't look like a complete *******. I would be happy to discuss this further later, but I have to go to work now and will be away from my computer until this evening.

Again, I respectfully ask you to (at least temporarily) remove that post.

Thanks,
Thad

HalfPawn: Brave enough? I didn't accuse anyone and of course i didn't accuse Ed.....
I just say the facts and combine the facts to produce logical statements....Nothing more!

Also although i won you in the 100% of the games we played Gothic Chess, i saw a very good even an amazing improvement from game to game, so i guess you may be extremely good at Gothic Chess right now.... Maybe, maybe not of course..... Also my characterization to you, as one that has evolved to a God and specifically to Hermes, maybe unfair or wrong! Don't feel offended in any way, but if you do then i trully apologize for it....!

Also about the: "And all I did was ask who Pyhagoras thought was the strongest player, and I still don't really have an answer."

I already answered....See a little above.


Walter Montego: Yes Hermes is the God i was refering. Mercury is the name of the planet that is closest to the sun and in my language Hermes=Mercury so you are right.
For your information God Hermes is the son of Zeus(the King of the 12 Olympus Gods) and Maia. He is Zeus’s messenger. He is the fastest of the gods. He wears winged sandals, a winged hat, and carries a magic wand.....

Pythagoras: So when Hermes gets back to Zeus about the doings here on earth the heavens will roil and boom with thunder and lightening? Yes, I can see the storm clouds forming now.

Though I prefer another analogy:
Nice fishing, looks like you got a live one or two.

HalfPawn: I would be very surprised if Ed admits he did such a thing?!?!? I don't know the truth but i'm very curious what Ed he will say....

If Thad is saying that Ed told him he is using a computer to play, while Ed comes and denies it, i can't make any conclusion at all since both Thad and Ed are serious persons and i don't want to take the side of anyone....

HalfPawn: I think you need to be 'brave' because you basically said Ed's 161-0 was 'not as good' as the Smirfengine's 32-5,

No! I didn't say that....!
I repeat what i said: "The rating someone has depends on the definition of the rating system and the ratings the opponents had. And that it is possible and very logical that someone with even 876 wins and no loses can have lower rating than someone with 18 wins and 5 loses...."
I didn't make any statement about if the 32-5 is superior or not from the 161-0. It may be it may not....



and from the crosstables that were posted, Smirf played some weak players and Ed played the best of the best.

Again that proves nothing! You have to be more analytical.....
For example I play and win 2 strong players and 712 monkeys. And have 714-0.
You play 4 weak players and 28 strong players and have 28-4 with 4 loses from the strong players.
The conclusion? Is 714-0 better than 28-4? No.
I don't say that happened in any way! I just prove that your quoted statement is false.

Yet if you said: "and from the crosstables that were posted, Smirf played against an opposition of some level and Ed played against a higher rated opposition."
then my answer would be: "Ed's rating below Smirf's is not correct and should be above it."



And, Pythagoras, you have even told me, and showed me, some of the weak play of the Gothic Vortex program. If Ed did use that on here, wouldn't those same weaknesses be obvious?

No they need a good at anti-computer like me to exploit them and there are not many here.....




You claim to be a 'man of logic' yet you fail to make any remarks showing you can 'think outside of the box.' One of the truest tests of intelligence is intuitive improvisation. And comparing 161-0 to 32-5 really isn't that big of a stretch.

I can't think ouside of the box as i'm deliberately inside the box!
Also consider the example: "161 wins and no loses. All wins against 3-years old childs. And 32 wins and 5 loses against 2400 rated people."So here is an example that we can compare it. The fact that there are examples we can't compare it is irrelevant.....




GothicInventor will play the Smirfengine a 1 game match. You get to write down who you think will win the game. If you are wrong, you will be shot and killed. If you are right, you will be paid one million dollars. To make it fair, let's say Smirf's programmer would be paid one million if it wins and GothicInventor would be paid one million if he wins, and they do not know about your situation at all. That way, everyone is properly motivated.

I will only answer this question if instead of being killed, nothing serious would happen.
Then:

Who would you pick to win?

No need to give me an explanation about how this hypothetical situation will never arise.

I just want your answer, Smirfengine, or GothicInventor.


I'm the last person on earth that would not answer on hypothetical questions! I always answer them.....

Well it depends highly on the time controls! As there are many numbers of different time controls i'm too lazy to arrange it into different time-controls categories for each case.
So please tell me in what time control the match would be......?

HalfPawn: I just copied and posted what you had said on here Thad.

No, you added comentary saying that one statement I made was, "too unbelievable to be true", said about one statement, "Isn't that ridiculous?", and said that another "has to be a complete lie!"

I certainly do not appreciate such words, especially from someone I have never had contact with before. Why are you treating me this way? What did I ever do to you?

My 'too unbelievable' statement, 'ridiculous' statement, and 'lie' are all true. In my one and only game against Trice, he announced mate in 5. I asked him how he could be so sure and he told me that he used software. In addition, he told me that he always did (I believe he meant always did in his games at BK). Hiding behind software is tantamount to cheating. By the way, why would a player as good as he was need to use software to beat an inexperienced, low rated player such as myself with only a handful of games played?

Thad

I am often accused of being quick with the delete button, and in the past so it has been and about Gothic Chess often ... so ...

Please follow these rules ... stated as guiding lights not strictures:
- comments are not to be personal attacks, either directly or indirectly.
- make it clear if you are stating a fact or an opinion.
- do not take posts from here and deposit them elsewhere (or vice versa bringing stuff here) without consent from those being quoted or paraphrased. The fact that they are taken to a free site and responses can be made there is of no consequence ... what is said here stayshere. While there is no way to police this outside this site it is possible (though undesirable) to curtail offenders while they are here.

With that said it may well time we moved onto a new subject ... if some want to they can pursue the amtter at the other site given in Halfpawn's post below.

I just recently created a tournament with outlandish parameters (it has now been deleted). I have created a new tournament that now has more flexible parameters. If you are interested in an Embassy Chess tournament to see who is the best (and to get as many rated games in as possible) then by all means join! invite others!!

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=14512

ColonelCrockett: I think you might want to try the regular round robin format if that's your goal of lots of games. Two games each player. From what I can see of this newly created tournament, the maximum number of players is four and the most games anyone will be able to play is two!

Seeing how it's kind of confusing to use the terms Kingside or Queenside when refering to which side one castles toward, I've been trying to think of some better names. It is true enough that we can use the regular Chess names and keep in mind what really happens, but seeing how the long castle is on the regular Chess Kingside in Embassy Chess it seems to me a different set of names would work better.
With the royalty on the one half of the board and the military and ecclesiastic leaders on the other it should be easy enough to just name them in that manner. A royalside castle would be moving the King to the "B" file and a courtside castle would be moving the King to the "H" file.
Yeah?

Fencer reversed 0-0-0 and 0-0 in relation to regular Chess notation, but they do match as to which side is the long side. Courtside gets the three 0's. There shouldn't be any confusion unless you are able to castle on either side that move. You can always write the square you move the King to to avoid ambiguity.

Now about them C's and A's! Fencer said a few months ago he was aware of the problem when he was talking about Grand Chess. Same piece names as in Embassy Chess. When Embassy Chess was added I asked about it and he said he was aware of it, but it had a low priority. Apparently it's an artifact of the Gothic Chess HTML notation used on this site. Ed Trice had a quip about the icons used for the Marshalls and Cardinals in both games too. Janus Chess has its "J" for Janus and the strange puppy icon. Maybe all it requires is every C and A changed in the HTML code to M and C respectively. If so, send the code over Fencer and I'll take it up and send it back. It's got to be less than a couple hundred edits, right? A rather tedious job, but I'll do it. If it requires something that requires programming knowledge, then no, I won't be able to help.

Walter Montego: What's wrong with A and C notation and piece names? They were introduced by Capablanca, why change them?

andreas: Are you sure of that? Caspablanca had a number of different games called Capablanca Chess. 10 × 10 board too. The Chess variants site has a few of his game designs there.

http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/capablanca.html

It shows four different games and mentions that the names of the pieces were called other things besides Chancellor and Archbishop, though it doesn't say what.

http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/bird.html
Predates Capablanca's Chess various versions by 40 or 50 years.

Embassy Chess is made up from Bird's Chess not Capablanca Chess. The names of the pieces are those used in Grand Chess. Bird named the pieces Guard and Equerry, but those names don't seem too popular. I personally don't like the names Chancellor and Archbishop. One is a school official and the other's name is part of a piece already on the board. Whereas Marshall and Cardinal seem like good names. Marshall is the second strongest piece on the board and is a military general. The Cardinal is a powerful Bishop that can change colors to have the power of two Bishops.

As for changing them, the letters should match the names of the piece where it is practical. I remember when I first learned to play Chess, the Knight was written as Kt. But it's been N for a long time. M for Marshall and C for Cardinal, seems simple to me. What's so special about A and C? The C is conflicting with the name of the pieces. The A doesn't match any of the pieces. At least with the N for Knight you have the sound of the word Knight and you eliminate confusion with the K for King.

I would prefer to keep the established abreviations C and A. But I would like to use one of the names introduced by its early inventor Carrera: Centaur (but for N+R) and Archangel (for N+B), to avoid confusion with bishops.

See also for my suggested symbols at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca-Random-Chess .

HalfPawn: You know, now that you mention it the Marshall does bull his way in. Same M too. It doesn't fit with the name of the game though. An embassy has dignitaries and government representitives. Minotaurs are from mythology and live in caves right? I hadn't thought of the translation of the names. Isn't S used for Knight in Germany? Or is the N the standard for everyone nowadays?

andreas: You asked this question in 2003, before I'd ever played a large board game of Chess. Caissus, Ed, and rabbitoid all had answers for you that I find interesting. Caissus' reply answers my question about German and it appears M and C work very well in that language. That's your native tongue isn't it SMIRF Engine Reinhard?
_________ ____________ ___________ ____________

andreas Names of new pieces in other languages 29. December 2003, 00:25:05

Is there any translation of new pieces names (Chancellor and Archibishop) in other languages? In particular, I am interested in German and Russian translations.
_________________ _________ _____________
Caissus 29. December 2003, 01:59:19

Ich denke auf Deutsch doch einfach "Kanzler" und "Kardinal".
__________ ____________ ____________
rabbitoid December 2003, 02:09:08

not good, think of the abbreviations for notation. how about Erzbischof?
____________ ________________ ___________
Caissus 29. December 2003, 02:17:47

Okay,the abbreviations is an argument (many K`s),but then better for the Chancellor: "Marschall" = M,the other usual synonym for this piece and "Bischof" = B,or we use the more usual "Kardinal" and the abbreviation "C"
____________ ____________ __________ ___________ _______
Grim Reaper 29. December 2003, 05:46:48

From the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, there are Bishops, Archbishops, and 'special Archbishops' that are candidates for becoming the next Pope called Cardinals. You can be an Archbishop and still not be a Cardinal, but all Cardinals are at least Archbishops.

I am not sure if that adds clarity or confusion.

A Chancellor should be easier to translate into German, since that is an official Title of State. A Chancellor in American lingo can also be someone of Academic importance at a University.
_________ __________ ______ _______ ________

Walter Montego today! So it seems that M and C are a natural choice for all of these games in German. You guys all speak that language and still would rather have A and C. I'm confused about this.

Walter Montego: S stand for 'Springer' in German. The Knight is a figurine of a horse because of Howard Staunton designing the piece that was in the 1840's. I have seen Minataur pieces online that have the head of a bull and they're total cool looking!

I say let Chancellor become Minataur, looking like a bull.
Let Archbishop become Centurion (or General), looking like a Roman soldier with a plume in his helmet.

JinkyOng: Ah, I misunderstood you. You are talking about the design of the pieces used to play the game over the board. That sounds like a good idea. I have never played any of these games except over the internet and just use the icons on the screen to make my moves. The Grand Chess designer has some pieces that look pretty good.

SMIRF Engine:
Even if there are enough names for the fairy pieces,
the players of orthodox Chess would understand their moves better if we would introduce their combined Chess names: KnightBishop, KnightRook,
and if one day you decide to introduce in Smirf the Maharaja/Amazon, then i would suggest as "KnightQueen".

Walter Montego: the tournament's maximum number of players can be exceeded (according to my settings) So that's not the issue). Also, I wanted to accommodate people with busy schedules by making each round a one game match (this includes myself). I would rather see a variety of talent play a single game than a few players play several. If people want more rounds just invite more players. (that's the goal in my mind . . . get people interested in the game and then try for the big sectional round robins).

CryingLoser: I cannot remember the Queen being called BishopRook. I prefer uncombined names for the new pieces. It is important for me to have abbreviating letters and distinct symbols, best remembering somehow their gaits.

I'm playing a game that has gone 47 moves without a Pawn capture. There might have been one 20 or so moves ago, but I stupidly let myself get Bishop skewered and had to retreat to a defensive posture. I've never played any game of Chess without a Pawn capture after maybe 30 moves, so I find this rather unusual. We'll be repositioning for some more moves and maybe I'll see a chance to attack the Pawn wall for something. As I'm playing against a machine it doesn't matter if you want to speculate or comment on the game or not.
http://brainking.com/en/ShowMove?g=1452511&m=2030


I was trying Pythagoras' plan of a strong Pawn center and then a sacrifice as a way to beat programs, but like I said I screwed up earlier. I told Reinhard that I didn't believe SMIRF had long range or grand view thinking and doubted that it'd be able to use it's material advantage to win the game with it locked up as it is.

Walter Montego: Nicely done....! Great Pawn wall.... If you don't do any mistake Smirf can't do nothing to penetrate....
Yet this wall you created, corresponds to a drawish plan, while although i also create closed positions, they are for attacking purposes and only to win. Of course as you said you made a mistake giving some material. But in fact when you play with this system for a draw it's good to give a Rook for a Bishop since Rooks are totally incapable of penetrating in that kind of positions due to their lack of diagonal play.....

Looking for Fischer Random players. No answers to my post in the 8x8 area.

JinkyOng: I'd visit the ranking pages for FRC if I were you!

Walter Montego: I like the position, Walter . . . to me it looks as though you are winning (however, as Pythagoras noted, it may require a sacrifice or two and certainly it will require alot of careful calculation). Anyway, a very nice game and a far cry from my Tactical attempt at SMIRF.

Walter Montego: I like the position, Walter . . . to me it looks as though you are winning (however, as Pythagoras noted, it may require a sacrifice or two and certainly it will require alot of careful calculation). Anyway, a very nice game and a far cry from my Tactical attempt at SMIRF.

JinkyOng: you can also visit the "waiting games" or start some yourself.

Pythagoras, ColonelCrockett: A couple of moves ago I almost captured the Pawn on B4 with my Knight. I was thinking I'd take two of its Pawns and start marching mine, but I thought SMIRF would get his Marshall and Rook over to the Royalside and I'd regret doing it. So I'm back moving Knights around. It's Pawn by my King is something I might be able to capture. There are a couple holes in the wall that I can get into. I'm not used to playing in this manner. I'm thinking my best bet might be to force a passed Pawn by giving up a Knight and get it promoted.

Reinhard has from time to time through the game told me SMIRF's evalution of the points it keeps track of for a position. It would seem that you and SMIRF agree about the value of a Rook compared to Bishop in a position like this. It only had itself a Pawn up back then. I'll ask him what the score is again.

Still no Pawn captures or captured Pawns either.

Walter Montego: I saw the line you mentioned with a Knight sac and the Marshall and rook stop . . . however, I should think the Cardinal could come into play (you've seen how well Cardinal's aide passers). ;)