Thanks, I was hoping they'd be a little closer to each other, but you're probably right.

I joined a chess club recently and am wondering what my chess rating will probably be in relation to my gothic rating. I stay in the low 1900's in gothic.

You're all invited to join in. Even those of you that like early draws :)

Aren't "grandmaster draws" when two people agree to draw early? I can't remember where I heard that phrase or whether I just made it up.

I like the suggestion from WhisperzQ that people tell you whether they are using a computer or not to analyze during games. As I said before, I don't mind if people are using programs while playing me because it's legal here at BK. However, it would be nice to know if I'm playing a "centaur" or just a person.

Thanks, Caissus. One of the reasons I made the switch to Gothic was the lack of strong programs, "uncharted territory" if you will. I don't like the idea of "centaur chess" (although the expression is excellent) and can't wait until we get a full "live gothic chess" site (with a ranking system) that will have otb rules that will prohibit "centaurs" from playing.
However, if anyone wants to use a computer program while playing me here I have no problem with that. You are absolutely right, it isn't prohibited so it isn't cheating. Thanks for the input.

Thanks for the input Ed! I guess the "if a rule cannot be enforced, it really isn't a rule at all" comment set my mind straight on that issue. I'm also glad to see that you have trouble agains Vortex at the faster time controls. I was beginning to get frustrated with it!

Just throwing a question out there. Do you think that computer programs should be used while playing other people, on BK or in general?
I personally don't use the new Gothic Vortex engine, or any of the other engines out there, to analyze my ongoing games. I'll use it to analyze my finished games whenever I can remember to download it (sorry Ed, moving has been tough. I'll get around to ordering your wonderful program sometime this week). One reason I stopped playing on the Internet Chess Club site is because I'm convinced that, with longer time controls, people were using computers to help them as they played. I like the idea of playing mano a mano.
I do realize that this is a correspondence site and that the rules for this type of play are a little more lenient but I'm still not comfortable accepting help from anyone or anything (i.e. computer programs) while I'm playing.
I'd love it if some of you would weigh in on this issue and either support my objection to using them or set my thinking straight.

Count me in too!

Amen Nasmichael! I didn't mean any offence to Caissus and I think that we'll have to agree to disagree about the future of both chess and gothic chess.

I think Caissus is dead on about Gothic on a 10x10. However, I disagree with him about "there is only chess." Chess has been evolving throughout the centuries and even going back a few hundred years you can see a huge number of changes in basic rules and ways the pieces move. See The Chess Artist for a nice synopsis of how each piece has evolved over time. Even Kasparov wants to change the initial starting piecs of "normal" chess to solve the death by draw problem. (See A Psychiatrist matches wits with Fritz) This solution, and most of the other chess variants that I've seen, seem very arbitrary to me. In my opinion Gothic Chess is the only logical next step in the evolution of chess.

Both of Silman's books are good (I've even gone through the Reassess Your Chess Workbook) but they really didn't help my chess rating at all. I think that you'd need to be a Class A or Expert player to really get a boost in useable knowledge from those books. When I was trying to play Silman's way I'd get into really complex positional games, hold my own against strong players for 20-30 moves, and then miss a tactical shot or simply blunder. The book that really opened my eyes (and boosted my rating) is Rapid Chess Improvement by Michael de la Maza. He has a set of drills and a tactical study regimen that is a little too much for me right now (my wife and I are moving) but I've modified it to fit my limited free time and it has really helped me a lot.

I felt the same way when I first started playing gothic. The good news is that I'm now winning a lot more chess games. Chess seems almost easy after you get used to gothic. As far as the way pieces work together, I link up my Archbishop with either of the bishops (kind of like having a queen behind a rook) or use it to support a knight outpost. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to utilize the Chancellor. Gothicchess.org has some interesting articles on the Chancellor's Vortex. One thing that really helped both my play in gothic and normal chess was using the tactics program CT-Art 3.0 from www.chessassistant.com. This program forces you to ingrain a massive number of tactics into your brain. After doing a bunch of them, you start naturally looking for them in your play. Hope this helps a little.

Before I ask my question, I just want to congratulate Ed on the match with Bruce Pandolfini and also thank him for the Gothic Vortex program. I'm currently working on an idea for a "safe" opening. Something like the KIA or Barcza in old chess. In those openings you get a quickly castled king with a solid kingside before getting aggressive elsewhere. You get to gauge your opponent for a few moves before picking your pawn structure, and getting to see where you want to attack. So far I've got 1.i3 2.Bi2 3.Nh3 at move 4 several options present themselves. To stay with the quick castling theme something must be done with the Archbishop. I haven't played enough Gothic Chess to know where the Archbishop can be most effective early in the game. I'm thinking about 4.Af3 5.0-0.
My ambition for a safe opening may be misdirected in Gothic chess. If anyone has any input on this, please feel free to criticize, contribute, or whatever. Thanks, greenknight.