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.

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."

...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:

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.

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.

Since Pedro Martinez has changed his post so radically, I will do everyone a big favor by not renewing the license.

And I guess Pedro does not want me to send him any more Pond bets anymore, so I will stop doing that as well.

For those interested

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

Looks like the staff there deleted some of the posts. If you have any questions you can always ask the people who run CowPlay.

The International Patent was awarded 6 months ago.

CowPlay.com was in non-compliance with their license, having until December 31, 2004 to send me $1. I had filed for the international infringement case on December 30, "just in case". Gothic Chess was pulled from their site and they were fined $275 per day of non-compliance.

This lit up the discussion board at ChessVariants.org for a while

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?itemid=GothicChess

End of March. Not up to me.

Guess what arse? fencer agrees with me, have a
butchers!

Fencer (hide) 23. January 2005, 09:42:26 I don't
see anybody being unfairly moderated. Reply


Even better, now he is deleting your arse from BK and
your bloody game as well!! Mess with the mod and you
die!







____________________
_______________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <hamlet_mill@yahoo.co.uk>
Received: from rly-xh02.mx.aol.com (rly-xh02.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.231]) by air-xh01.mail.aol.com (v104.17) with ESMTP id MAILINXH12-48941f3e0262aa; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:34:42 -0500
Received: from web26605.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (web26605.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.146.176.55]) by rly-xh02.mx.aol.com (v104.17) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXH21-48941f3e0262aa; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:34:30 -0500
Received: (qmail 12486 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Jan 2005 17:34:30 -0000
Message-ID: <20050123173430.12484.qmail@web26605.mail.ukl.
yahoo.com>
Received: from [69.139.27.157] by web26605.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:34:30 GMT
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:34:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hamlet Mill <hamlet_mill@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Outta here loser!
To: GothicChessInfo@aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AOL-IP: 217.146.176.55
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:0:0:
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0

I received an anonymous email from a moderator (probably "Stevie") claiming that Fencer will remove Gothic Chess from this site and I will be banned. Just thought you all should know.

It looks like a diseased wolf to me.

I think programs just read one byte at a time for the "blank" squares, since usually 8 is the maximum. Now with the potential for a "10" to indicate skipping 10 squares, programs have to parse differently ("read until '/', then convert it to the correct number of squares to skip over).

0 would imply 10 and still match the 1-byte standard. 10 requires the new parsing code, and it departs from the 'chess' standard.

Sumerian

Hello Reinhardt. My version of SMIRF still creates "/0" instead of "/10" for the Gothic Chess PGN files. Should I download a new copy?

I will change the game files on the website.

I would like to think that this game might be a candidate for inclusion in that journal:

http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=347378&i=65

The position shown is the start of a mate in 27 (with optimal play) and it involves sacrifices of the Janus on both ends. White to move and win tosses one on the right side of the board, and the opponent finds a creative way to try and draw by disposing of his Janus on the left side of the board. Black then sacrifices the exchange (Rook for Bishop) to sustain the attack with his Janus. Then, white parts with the Queen, and the win is finally assured, although the ending of 2 Rooks vs. Janus plus "army of pawns" looks bad for white at first glance.

I don't think I have the energy and time to pour into another Janus tournament, or clearly not at the same level, so that game might be all I have that is worthy of print.

A great game against a very strong Janus player.

I just notice the board colors on the diagram are wrong. The lower right hand corner is always supposed to be white.

1. A2h3, waiting.

if 1..gxh3 2. Axh3#

Does anyone know what this is all about? I did not take the time to read it, thought maybe a Janus player would know more about it.

http://www.miranda-im.org/download/details.php?action=viewopinion&id=1118

I have 80 square boards and I could easily make a Janus set since I have extra pieces. Just let me know.

Which is exactly my point. Why not make them meaningful?

I am still trying to figure out how a performance of 126 wins, 1 draw, and 0 losses derserves a lower rating than someone with 7 wins and 3 losses.

Somehow "Nellaf" is at 2417 after losing 3 games, and I am at 2410 after winning 126 without a loss.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Here are some reasons, in Walter's own words, why he is a bad moderator.

1. Dissemination of false information

Post reference date: 15. October 2004, 03:01:05

The game itself is a good game, regardless of what name it or the pieces have. Since Bird invented the game, I think it should be named in honor of him. Let Ed promote it and make his money, but give credit where credit is due."

Errors: Bird did not invent the game, I did. Walter refuses to acknowledge even the most irrefutable of facts.

Do we really want this guy to be moderator?

2. Lack of true knowdlege about what he posts

Post reference date: 15. October 2004, 03:01:05

...I doubt if we'll ever really find the true answer about the patenting and rights because it doesn't seem like there's that much money in it.

Well we sold 30,000 sets since December of 2000, which we were required to furnish backup for to the International Computer Games Association
Journal (including tax returns and general ledger entries) before they would put that it print.

PDF file mentioning sale of 30,000 sets

That PDF file is from the ICJA website and we distribute it freely on ours as well.

Errors: Poor assumptions by Walter, not asking for information but instead fabricating his own version of events.


Do we really want this guy to be moderator?

3. Jumping to conclusions

Post reference date: 15. October 2004, 03:40:32

It's hard to imagine that he'd be able to get a court to pull the plug on BrainKing for that reason.

Errors: Blatant lie and willful mispresentation.

Where did I ever say I was going to do something even remotely similar to what is being suggested?

Do we really want this guy to be moderator?

4. Babbling

Post reference date: 15. October 2004, 03:35:49

What's the point of having a United Europe if each state has seperate patenting laws? That'd be like California having different patent laws than Nevada. Though in fairness, a lot of California's laws are different than Nevada's, let alone Utah's!

Errors: Straying far off topic, babbling.

The ninth and tenth admendments to the United States constitution deal with the powers of each state and how they relate to the Federal governemnt.


Errors: Straying far off topic, babbling.

I'm sure the powers that be and other interested parties are duking it out in Europe over the very thing. I suppose it's all in the details and who has the sovereignty when it all gets worked out. I'm just glad I don't have to go through customs each time I cross state lines on the way to Canada and my United States money spends in each state without having to be exchanged.

Errors: Straying far off topic, babbling (maybe just liking to "hear himself talk?")

Though California has the Agriculture stop point on the way back. It's been there since atleast the 1930's. I saw it in a movie called the "Grapes of Wrath". If Ed gets a European Patent, I'm sure you'll be the first to know.

Errors: Babbling some more, then including me into a "summation" with no supporting facts.

Do we really want this guy to be moderator?

5. Far flung speculations involving governments

Post reference date: 15. October 2004, 03:35:49

There's one thing you might be overlooking about the enforcement of foreign patents: treaties. It is possible that our governments have worked out a deal covering this situation.

Errors: Obvious over-reaching, lack of factual data.

This post says a lot. Walter wants to get governments involved in order to satisy his whim.

I will pause here, there is more I can add, but what's the point?

Do we really want this guy to be moderator?

Walter seems to think the entire U.S. Federal Court system has online links, so I will allow him to wallow in his ignorance. All court cases are a matter of public record, so he can go to his local jurisdiction and request acess to a search engine and do his own diligence. As for the upholding of the patent, it is easy enough to find at the USPTO site.

U.S. Patent 6,481,716 which showcases links to the summaries of the cases that were won if you look hard enough.

I think that's enough hand holding for now.

Everyone knows I am not running for moderator. I have said before, I am not taking on new games, I am finishing what I have, then leaving. I had one person recently beg me for a game of checkers, so we played a quick one, and that was that.

Out of respect for Terry Trotter, I will participate in the Remembering Jestone event, which should go quickly at 1 day per move.

The people who contacted me I just redirected to Thad. I know at one point there were a total of 14 people who expressed opposition to the anti-patent remarks.

They are being asked to post vocally now here in this board.

As I see it now, we have "publicly" 3 votes to remove Walter.

Bwildman, ScarletRose, and myself.

I think it is safe to say that ChessCarpenter and tedbarber will add to this, as they were one of the first to call the post by Walter to my attention.

So we have a conservative 5 votes to remove Walter right there.

Walter,

People contacted me after your "anti-patent" posts. I am not going to put words into their mouths, nor am I going to inflame the situation. But if you think it was Bwilman that started this, you are incorrect. Some of the very same people who are not "Gothic Chess DB regulars" are the ones who expressed disgust that a MODERATOR of a discussion board was so vehemently opposed to the rulings of two United States Federal Courts upholding the validity of the patent.

How can you moderate something you are so opposed to? What is the source of your anger? Why don't you just step down?

As I understand it, a private petition for your removal was circulated by several PAYING MEMBERS of brainking.

As I read bwildman's post, all he did was ask a simple question. Perhaps whoever is spearheading the removal campaign has not been responsive to bwildman, so he took the next step and posted the question on here.

It seems like a very democratic thing to do and I see nothing wrong with it.

I read it too :)

How many Gothic Vortex owners also have a Macintosh? I am just curious if anyone does. I started writing the Macintosh version today. This one will be the first with PGN support and the database linked to the gui.

Sometimes you need to clear your CACHE to get a proper display of the position. Depending on your browser, it may be in EDIT/PREFERENCES/ADVANCED SETING, CLEAR CACHE NOW or something similar.

After you do that, a refresh should work.

I like 1. d4 better than 1. f4 since the Bishop on c1 gets blocked by the f4 pawn.

The next Gothic Chess article for Chessville.com:

Tactical Artwork featuring some tactical combinations from games played on BrainKing, see if any of yours were shown.

Hi George,

I am looking over these games to see if I can reproduce the same behavior in Vortex. I can say this: it looks like the "Trojan Horse" sacrifice code needs some work. When a piece is situated so that a pawn capture would open up the j-file, it triggers search extending that occasionally finds "impossibly deep" mates, like mate in 20 or mate in 30, and most times a human can't see it.

I will examine that code.

Also, in Game 1, what do you think of 9...Nxg3+ instead of castling? Example:

9...Nxg3+ 10. Axg3 Bh4 11. Nh7+ Kg8 12. Nxj8 Bxg3 13. Nxi6 Bxe1 14. Qxe1 jxi6

Very heavy trading! Maybe 15. Qi5 Kh7 with an unclear position.

As George and others have noted, opinions vary, so it is a good time to state facts first, then offer comments on the facts afterwards.

1. In Bird's Chess, after 1. Ch3 Black has to defend against 2. Cxh7# since the h-pawn is undefended. Checkmate results if it is not defended, so there is clearly no arguing this point!

2. In Capablanca's chess, the push of White's d-pawn will reveal the attack of the Archbishop against Black's undfended i-pawn.

3. In "Wrong Bird's" chess, 1. Cc3 requires Black to respond to the threat against the undefended c-pawn.

4. In Gothic Chess, there are no such 1-move threats.

I think we can all agree to the above.

The question remains, is 1. Ch3 a "good move" in Bird's chess, since after defending the h-pawn, Black may be able to gradually build up pressure against the misplaced White chancellor. Same for the other variants mentioned.

I think we can all agree there is nothing wrong with 1. d3 or 1. d4 in Capablanca's chess, yet Black still must react against the i-pawn "attack". I don't think a natural move such as 1...Nh6 can be labeled "forced" since it is a move you might want to play anyway.

But, given all of the above, I think it is also safe to say that in the other variants, the scope for play in the opening is reduced as a direct result of the initial configuration of the board.

In this sense, we might loosely refer to Gothic Chess as "having the most balance."

Yeah and someone should patent this treasure of a game since it has not been claimed yet.

Right George, I was looking for some "lively" play on CCC and there was much talk of the "Double Muzio" which was a known loss. I wanted to play it anyway since I saw lots of inferior play in the opening books.

I found for 11. Qe2 some good play for black which I elect to keep private for now. The 11. Be5 move compounds the pins and guarantees the recovery of at least one piece. It had not been played before so I decided to see what it would bring.

Again, it was a "fun" game for me, mostly to improve upon the pawn-to-g4 line which is "book" that gives black an easy win. I think my analysis shows better play for white.

I still don't know what Caissus is complaining about. It is not him I am playing, or is it?

Reza, the guy who created the tournament, is moving much slower, only on move 13 in my game with him in the same event. I am on move 27 against AlexII.

Excellent point Thomas. He did post as if he was reviewing the entire game, even claiming to know exactly where a losing move was made early in the game. I think Caissus is AlexII. Good observation!

And another thing, where did that direct quote that Caissus made about AlexII come from? Does AlexII send information to Caissus about his own games against me? That is odd isn't it?

Your message makes no sense Caissus. Why are you concerned about a "regular chess" game of mine with another player? That was a wild King's Gambit game where I gave up 2 pieces just for fun.

And what am I going to tell Fencer when I move fast in that game and you move slow in our Gothic Chess game?

You don't make any sense and I am putting you on HIDE, ignoring everything you type from now on.

Bye bye Caissus!

Since Caissus declined to play me a game of "Wrong Bird" chess, I will consider the matter closed since he agrees with me that white to move is a win.

By the way, you are the only opponent who has not moved against me, slow Caissus. It is my turn in all of my other games.

I'll play you a game of "Wrong Bird" chess if you want.

By the way, the moves I showed were "plausible" whereas yours were the moves of an idiot.

Caissus missed the point. An imbalance was shown from plausible play. You can't say "Don't play those moves and there is no imbalance."

The c-pawns can be attacked since they are not defended. White to move can win in that game. And if play is "forced", like ...c6 for Black, what is the point? You mean every time I attack the c-pawn you will play ...c6 then? Doesn't that detract from the game?

Why make a new variant if every amateur will be tempted to play 1. Cc3 and then every black player is forced to play something like ...c6 as a result?

This stifles play instead of makes it better.

The Chancellor/Queen swap does not work, the game is a failure.

There is a way to "learn". Our very intelligent checkers program (a 154 MB download!) which is available here makes use of learning.

The problem is how to get the "learned data" from an end user's hard drive back to us so we can "pool the learning" and make it available for all to access.

Also, the learning function requires the end user to allow the program to perform some analysis on itself after the game. This can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days, depending on the complexity of the variations. This is something that cannot be "enforced", so we would have to figure out how to do this. Perhpas we could have the users upload their wins, and we would have a dedicated system that did all of the "learning".

Please take a look at this image.

The TRUE Bird configuration

This shows both the CORRECT and INCORRECT configurations. Someone said that Gothic Chess was merely replacing the Chancellor and Queen location on Bird's board.

Clearly this is not the case.

See page 39 of "The Adventure of Chess" written by Edward Lasker, published by Dover in 1949, 1950, and 1959 (same book, different editions.)

The confusion stems from the names of the pieces. Recall I refer to them as Chancellor and Arcbishop, whereas others, including Capablanca, have called these same pieces Marshall and Chancellor. So, the Chancellor of Bird is really my Archbishop, and his Marshall is my Chancellor. What compounds the confusion is that later on Capablanca switched his terminology, and I adopted his later designations to maintain the status quo.

It is obvious to many people that Capablanca switched the location of the Bishop and Archbishop on one side of Bird's board, and the Bishop and Chancellor on the other side. CAPABLANCA DID NOT MISS THE "OBVIOUS" SWITCHING OF THE CHANCELLOR AND QUEEN, SINCE THIS WAS NOT THE WAY BIRD PLAYED HIS GAME!

Capablanca "fixed" Bird's mate in 2 problem 1. Ch3 Nc6?? 2. Nxh7# which was an ugly blemish. But, in fixing Bird's setup, he introduced another weakness, namely, his hanging i-pawn.

Let's say you like the "Wrong Bird" version of the game, as shown in the diagram. That would feature Rook Knight Bishop Chancellor Queen King Archbishop Bishop Knight Rook.

That setup results in a very unplayable game.

1. Cc3 Nc6

White is striking against the unprotecetd c7 pawn, and Black blocks the Chancellor's rook attack by interposing the Knight.

2. Cd5?! Ce6

White hops like a knight and hits c7 anyway, and Black holds it with his Chancellor.

3. Ah3 Cd4

White kicks the Chancellor and Black dodges the attack and goes after the c2-pawn.

4. Cc3

Not 4. Cxc7? d5! [Bishop hitting Archbishop on h3 and exhausting retreats of the chancellor] 5.Cxa8 Bxh3 6. Cxe8+ Kxe8 and now if 7. Nxh3? then 7...Cxc2 forks the Queen and Rook, so 7. Na3 is forced.

So you can see you have an embarrasing form of imbalance in that setup. White should refrain from such Chancellor folly early on, true, and Black can most likely develop normally then repel it as we do 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5? but the fact that an instability of sorts has been introduced to the game should prove to be a deterent to its ultimate acceptability by the masses.

George, any more wins with 1. f4 against Vortex? I am gradually expanding the opening book to add the correct play where I see it went wrong.

answers

END OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

No addresses in my mail here yet, did you change your mind?

Your wrong BBW. The configuration of the game is what is protected, and the rules. The name is not patented at all. It is a registered trademark.

You can rename every piece, leave notation off the sides of the board, whatever you want, but if you sell it with rules that are the same as Gothic Chess, you violated the patent.

I am not getting into arguments with people that have no intention of doing anything with Gothic Chess. I already have two wins under my belt and one out of court win.

I think you are both full of crap.

If you really want to test me, send me your address, openly admit you are challenging my patent and intend to sell the game, sell one set to someone, and watch what happens next.

END OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

Send me private messages with your addresses and your intention to do what you said, or you are all full of crap.

If you really believe what you say, send me your address. Show me a Gothic Chess set you made, and say you are going to sell sets. Otherwise, you are full of it.

I won two cases already regarding patent infringement.

Here is a third, settled out of court just this week.

exhibit b

exhibit c

If you don't believe me, call Derek Nalls at 580-223-2226 in Ardmore Oklahoma and ask him yourself.

Maybe you should tell Fencer he does not need a license to run Gothic Chess on here, and tell Cowboy on CowPlay.com he does not need one, and tell Frank Camarrata of HouseOfStaunton.com he did not need one, and Micheal Grey of Hasbro he did not need one.

Mike Grey is the VP of Research & Development for Hasbro, a 3.9 billion dollar per year firm, and their legal team agrees they need a license.

But not you Walter. You are smarter than the rest of the world, aren't you?

Walter, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about, which is why I asked to have a discussion OUTSIDE of this BBS regarding the patent.

You can't build your own Monopoly game and sell it, nor your own Clue game, nor Battleship.

It's called a METHOD PATENT which protects the game in total, not the decompartmentalized boards and individual pieces.

Your statements about what I "own" are 100% incorrect, and I will not argue with someone that doesn't know what they are talking about.

I will not reply to any more posts on this DB about the Patent. You can either talk to a patent attorney, or talk to me via personal message.

We make sets, of course, and we also have a licensing agreement in place with House of Staunton to produce outstanding wooden and carved marble sets. Hasbro, who now owns Milton-Bradley and Parker Bros., will be manufacturing our pieces domestically in the March 2005 timeframe.

If anyone wants to ask me about licensing, what is involved, who is required to obtain one, etc., that person should contact me privately.

By the way, does anyone know how fast Hydra is searching in regular chess?