ugh, if they want to have the game and CALL it Gothic Chess, they need a license, or else..um...well, you get the point.

I don't see much of a point in banning Ed and Dano. So what if their posts were off-topic? Isn't this one too? Albeit puerile, I found their repartie amusing at times and the entertainment value alone is sorely missed. And yes, at present, of course gothic chess is more fun than chess...more to discover! The whole reason Ed was removed as moderator was that he became draconian, banning everyone whom he thought was making a disturbance on this board. But to continue to ban him is only following in his footsteps. Just unban everyone and let em have at it. If you don't like the posts, hide them or put the offenders on your enemies list. Censorship is pusillanimous.

Can someone point out the specific piece of legislation interpreted as a requirement for BrainKing to have a licence for gothic chess?

How much longer of a ban are we talking about? You must remember it was the reluctance of a Moderator to do anything that let this thing get out of hand in the 1st place! I feel that there is something personal here and to let this continue is wrong!

The player who caused him to be banned is rude and obnoxious with alot of players who do not wish to adher to his viewpoint. Besides Ed invented the greatest of all Chess Games,Gothic Chess. To replace Gothic with the highly inferior Capablanca Chess should be unthinkable. It is too too unplayable;that was why Ed "fixed it;"to make it balanced and playable. It is the most playable chess variant on a 10x8 board. Gothic Chess is perfectly balanced and a whole lot more fun to play than any form of chess ever invented;this includes boring 8x8 traditional chess;which has gotten too too drawish and much too booked and analyzed.

I sacrificed a Queen on move 18 to get a forced mating net in 13;I foresaw most of it and was only surprised once.

well hell, can I be a mod too???

but thats what I meant by: myself included.

Speaking from an ex-mod's POV, I just want to make those in power aware of their duty to be fair. In other words, if you decide to keep the ban on any of these aforementioned BK members, let your decision not be based upon personal grudges, vendettas, or any other stupid reason except for factual violations of the actual rules. Let all be considered in an unbiased sense.

Trice seems to cause trouble faster than he forks out -- A conclusion reached by mere observation (i.e. prove it otherwise.)

Peaceful co-existence between these guys is possible only if you keep them apart, though.

Just my two cents z:)

Walter is right in saying the bans will stay for abit.
the color of the convrsations here have been great,as of late...and althouh I consider Ed's new found sense of humor funny....some dont.
I feel there are some very debatable opinions to be discussed...but personal insults(either direct or implied) should not be tolerated.This includes myself.
We are mostly all adults,and I really see no reason we cant comunicate as such.Dont get me wrong...theres absolutly nothing wrong witha sense of humor...but lets try to keep it on a less personal basis.
I am open to comments.

Welcome Thad and bwildman. I didn't add you to the list, so I'll figure you asked Fencer to be added to the list of moderators and he went for it.
I'm currently typing from the public library in Bishop, California as my truck broke down on the way home from Rock Creek where I was camping. I'll just let the new moderators have a free hand until or unless the need arises for me to do something about them. As for re-instating danoschek of EdTrice, they'll banned for awhile more if not forever. Though EdTrice might be welcomed back as he seems to have a few supporters here, though not one person has vouched for danoschek. The reasons they were banned previously are still valid now.

Wait and see.

What about if moderator M1 wants to ban X person while moderator M2 disagrees? And don't forget moderator M3.

So they should start having some conversations between them, to find a common way of thinking, for moderating this board.

And what would happen if someone between them strongly disagree with the others and start a fightning? I suggest to have another moderator to moderate them too:-)

That should be fun.

Let's try this.

Aloha all.

I have been watching this board for quite some time. I have made a few posts here and there. I mentioned to Fencer when Ed got stripped of his moderator position, but at the time, I was not a paying member, so I could not be the moderator. I have just paid my membership dues, so now I can be moderator. I would like to moderate this board. I enjoy Gothic Chess, but I am not as fiercely loyal to it as some players here, so I am interested in this board enough to do a good job and yet i can stay detached enough from it and be a good moderator, stepping in only when necessary.

If a couple more people post to give the job to me, perhaps Fencer will (hint, hint).

Thanks,
Thad

I cast my ballot for bwildman as the mod. Down with plonker Walter!

Fencer has already said,Walter can un ban,both Ed and Dunnosheck.So hopefully,if Walter is having Computer issues....Fencer might select another moderator.....like ME!!! LOL:)

Looking at the moderator's profile, it appears his cmptr is on the fritz. Also, he did not ban Trice and I believe he was under the impression that only Fencer could reverse the ban, so he didn't himself. But it's best to ask him yourself.

Where is the moderator? What good is he?

I am really enjoying the articles at www.chessville.com. It has a great analysis of the possibilities of the game. I appreciate all the work that has gone into it.

For my part, I really would like to see Gothic Chess stay here at BrainKing, as that is my great joy to come here and play.

I would like to see Ed unbanned. We learn from his perspective on the game, and as long as we come together to do that in this fellowship, we collectively benefit.

are allowed to stay and abuse the rules.. Yet, Ed is still banned.. Hmm..

LJ harrasses women.. and Dano.. well he babbles consistantly..

So why is Ed still banned..?? huh Walter?

If he can play within the rules just like everyone else, that would be a good thing. But in my opinion, he should no way get any special treatment by being above the rules of the site. Again, my opinion.

It's that simple.. besides, do you know all the hours involved just to bring a game on here.. is it really worth it??

Suppose it was you trying to endorse something.. how would it look to those prospective clients if you were made silent??!!

let Ed come back.

Bring back Ed Trice!!!!!!
And keep Gothic Chess here. No alternative variation is equal to it!!!!!!

As I already said many times, Walter Montego is in charge of this board and it's up to him and only him to decide who should be banned/unbanned etc. I've also send him a message so he is aware of it.

Again I want mention that Fencer can replace the game by a similar variation,for instance the "Aberg variation" of the Capablanca Chess.It is the same game with a different setup and it is not protected.

For this case I consider to get a patent for this variation with the name "Celtic Chess" and donate Bk a license forever:)

I'm all for having all parties able to post again as long as they can behave and follow the rules. (it takes 2 to argue). But I don't think threats are the best way to go about it.

It sounds to me that Fencer is fine with letting Ed back able to post on here as long as it's OK with the board Moderator. But the board Moderator does not want to "override" the ban that was originally put in place by Fencer. (Sounds like a simple mis-comunication, and if Walter knows that Fencer does not see it as an "override" and Walter's decision, I'm sure Walter would take a look at the ban.)

I would love to see Gothic Chess stay here, but if Fencer and the playing community here has to stay under threat of removal and other crap - it may be time to just let the game go and move on to other more entertaining versions of Chess.

That is my opinion.

Well I hope you can still play Gothic Chess on here. You see, the Gothic
Chess Federation has been actively promoting BrainKing for a long time. All
of our printed materials contain screen shots of BK, most of our interviews
in newspapers and on TV mentioned BrainKing. But Filip banned Ed Trice from
here because of an argument he had with another member (who is very much
disliked by many people, myself included). They were both banned, a while
ago, but enough is enough.

The GCF will not stand by this ridiculous ban. Ed has asked Fencer to remove
the ban. Fencer said Walter has to. Ed asked Walter. Walter said he will not
override Fencer.

The entire executive committee of the GCF sent a letter to Fencer. He has
not acted on it.

So, members of this board, do you want Gothic Chess on here, or not?

If Ed Trice is not permitted to post on this board, it is deemed a request
to not want to do business with the GCF on here any more. Look at some of
these recent posts and questions. Ed can answer all of them perfectly, but
he is not permitted to comment at all.

Ridiculous.

If Ed is not permitted to post onto this board, the Gothic Chess license
will not be renewed for BrainKing. Is Walter the reason why Ed is not able
to post? Walter, remove the ban, or step down as moderator. Is Fencer the
one who is stopping everything? He has been contacted several times and he
knows the end result if this continues.

So, people, what do you want to happen?

Don't post here, send a message to Fencer and Walter.

Robert Colanzi
GCF National Tournament Director

What about a thread about Gothic Chess on wikipedia.org ? Everybody may edit text. I started one on wikipedia.de today.

I received my order via mail today. 1.2 has more levels and looks better.

1st----------
Why not the simple 1...ixh6. Queen is lost, white has to resign.....


2nd----------
First of all this is not a legal Gothic Chess position (Meaning it can't be reached with valid play). But anyway here is my solution:

1.Ah3+ Kf7 {If 1...Kf6 then 2.Cf3+ with an unstoppable Mate in 6 (i checked every variation so i'm rather 100% sure)}
2.e4! with a Mate in 9 if i calculated correct(I didn't check everything, so a 70% possibility of corectness is my guess).
For example: 2...Cf6 3.Qj7+ Kg8 Aj5+ and the end is clear....

To the one before: And why ? ;-)

I am just finishing my sweetest game for at least a year, against a stronger player who had more material, with my king attack over 20 moves (just thought as fun because I saw me losing), I have never managed something like that successfully in normal chess. I like the new pieces and combis with them more and more.

Find the best move for black:
Black:
a7 b7 c7 f7 i7 j7
Kb8 Rc8 Rj8
Bh5 Nb4 Cd2

White:
a2 b2 e5 h2 i2 j2
Qh6 Nh3
Ka1 Rc1 Bh1 Rj1

Find a forced mate for white
whites pieces set up normally
Black:
e7 e5 d7 d6
Ce8 Qd8 Ke6 Rd5

yes, elo rating is based on results, not on intellectual capacity. and engines even play very humanly.

<>then, another thought: those are computer programs. that means, that they'll do the same >things with the same input (random functions excluded). I think that even a small difference >in computer strength would be enough to provide the sort of results you show. for example: >say that chess1.0 has an elo of 1800, chess2.0 an elo of 1850. among humans, you'd expect >results like 12-8; with computers results such as 20-0 aren't surprising.

Sorry but all these is simple nonsense!
If Progr-1 is only a little stronger than Progr-2 then a 20-0 is just impossible. And actually the results are just comparable with these of humans.
To be more specific:

Let's suppose that we have a database of computer Chess programs and a database of human Chess players. And after many games between the members of the 1st database against each other and the members of the 2nd database against each other, we establish an ELO classification for each database. And then we choose 2 programs(P1,P2) from the 1st base with ELO's A and B. And then we choose 2 humans(H1,H2) from the 2nd with ELO's A and B too.
Then according with ELO system definition, if a match between P1 and P2 has x% probability to end +w1 -w2 =w3, then a match between H1 and H2 has a x% probability also, to end +w1 -w2 =w3. The probability is the same or to reverse it: If the expected score between H1 and H2 is something then we have EXACTLY the same for P1 and P2 also. There is no reason that a small difference in computer's strength would provide different result than that of humans.

Two times the CPU time doesn´t make much difference, see the depth. My normal chess ELO is 1350-1400, maybe I still have to get more familar with the new pieces, but they really make it harder to think 6 half moves forward completely.

at ELO 2250: "most people want have the programs stronger..." I don´t think so. ;-) I don´t play gothic chess because normal chess would be too easy. ;-)

but were they recompiled from source? optimisers can make big differences. if you use old binaries, on new machines, the tests aren't conclusive.

then, another thought: those are computer programs. that means, that they'll do the same things with the same input (random functions excluded). I think that even a small difference in computer strength would be enough to provide the sort of results you show. for example: say that chess1.0 has an elo of 1800, chess2.0 an elo of 1850. among humans, you'd expect results like 12-8; with computers results such as 20-0 aren't surprising.

a good test would be to let the 2 programs play against some humans with a comparable strength.

A small test shows the obvious improvements:

Crafty 8.11 - Crafty 19.15______1-19 (2 draws)
Deep Fritz 8 - Fritz 1.20________20-0 !!!
Deep Fritz 8 - Fritz 5.32________18.5-1.5 (3 draws)

All are blitz games of 40/5'+40/5'+5'.

Fritz 1.20 played with DeepFritz8.ctg
Fritz 5.32 played with ChessTiger.ctg
All others with their own books and 5,4,3 endgame tablebases and 32 MB hash each.

<don't forget that even a "baby PC-Chess programs of 1991-1992" running on a 2+ gigahertz processor will do "slightly" better than the same program running on the ancestor 16bit machine.

actually I don't know if the software has made that many advences. I think the early gnuchess versions aleready existed then, and all the essential algorithms were already developed. it would be interresting to see if the then software, compiled today and running on a temporary machine would be much weaker than its descendants.

yes Walter, I know. chess board is this way --->, computers board is that way. ---

Are you kidding? Gothic vortex is a baby*** right now and with a clever or strong play it's rather easy to beat. Altough my Chess rating(not at Brainking) is not something big (about ~1930) i had a crushing winning score against G.V 1.0 and G.V 1.0.3, at every time control.
***Although i think in comparison with the baby PC-Chess programs of 1991-1992, it is far better. Logical since we are on 2004 and programming techniques for Chess-related programs are well developed.


The winning strategy is simple: Build an attack which should be away from it's horizon and let it conquer your "Queen side" (actually the opposite side where it's king has castled) or make a sacrifice of one or more pieces. Then the right time you should start your attack.

Here are 2 won blitz games against Gothic Vortex 1.0 (out of 40-50). The second is the most spectacular Gothic Chess game i have ever played(although blitz)! At one minute per game i had played only 11 games and i have +8 -3 =0.

Me Vs Vortex 1.0 -- 3 seconds per move:
1. f2f4 d7d5
2. g2g3 g7g6
3. c2c3 Bh8f6
4. d2d4 Ni8h6
5. h2h3 Nh6f5
6. Ag1h2 Ag8h6
7. e2e4 d5xe4
8. Bh1xe4 O-O
9. Ni1g2 Nf5d6
10. Be4f3 Bc8d7
11. g3g4 Bd7b5+
12. Kf1g1 Ah6i5
13. Ce1e3 Bf6g7
14. h3h4 Ai5j4
15. Ah2xj4 Bg7xj4+
16. i2i3 Bj4g7
17. i3i4 Nd6c4
18. Ce3e1 Bb5c6
19. j2j4 Qd8d6
20. h4h5 g6xh5
21. g4xh5 Qd6j6
22. i4i5 Bg7xi5
23. j4xi5 Qj6xj1+
24. Kg1f2 Qj1h3
25. d4d5 Bc6d7
26. Ce1i1 Qh3f5
27. b2b3 Nc4b6
28. h5h6 i7i6
29. Ng2h4 Qf5f6
30. Ci1j3 Ce8d6
31. Qd1i1 j7j5
32. Nh4xj5 Qf6g6
33. Cj3j4 Qg6c2+
34. Bc1d2 Bd7h3
35. Nj5h4 Bh3j5
36. Nh4xj5 Cd6xd5
37. Bf3xd5 Qc2xc3
38. Nb1xc3 Rh8g8
39. Nj5h4 Rg8g2+
40. Nh4xg2 Nb6xd5
41. Cj4j6+ Ki8h8
42. Cj6j8# 1-0

Me Vs Vortex 1.0 -- 3 or 10 seconds per move(i don't remember):
1. f2f4 d7d5
2. g2g3 g7g6
3. d2d3 Nb8c6
4. e2e3 Bh8f6
5. h2h3 e7e5
6. Bh1f3 e5xf4
7. g3xf4 Ag8h6
8. Ni1g2 Ni8g7
9. Nb1c3 Bc8e6
10. Ng2i3 O-O
11. Ce1g2 Bf6h4
12. Ag1e2 Ng7i6
13. Bc1d2 Ah6g7
14. d3d4 Bh4i5
15. Ni3j5 Ag7f6
16. Ae2d3 Ra8c8
17. Bd2e1 Bi5f8
18. Be1f2 Nc6b4
19. Ad3e5 Af6e7
20. a2a3 Bf8g7
21. Cg2h2 Bg7xe5
22. d4xe5 Nb4c6
23. i2i4 f7f6
24. e5xf6 Ae7xf6
25. j2j4 Qd8d7
26. Rj1j3 g6g5
27. h3h4 g5xf4
28. e3xf4 d5d4
29. Nc3e4 Be6c4+
30. Kf1g1 Rh8g8+
31. Ne4g5 Bc4e6
32. Kg1h1 Be6f5
33. Kh1i1 d4d3
34. c2c3 Ce8d6
35. Nj5i3 Cd6b5
36. Qd1d2 Cb5b3
37. Ra1d1 Cb3xd2
38. Rd1xd2 Af6e7
39. j4j5 Ni6g7
40. i4i5 Ae7g6
41. Bf2g3 Rc8d8
42. h4h5 Ag6f8
43. Ni3g2 Nc6a5
44. Ng2h4 Na5c4
45. Rd2d1 d3d2
46. h5h6 Bf5c2
47. Rd1xd2 Nc4xd2
48. Bf3g4 Qd7e7
49. Ch2i4 Ng7i6
50. j5xi6 h7xi6
51. Nh4xi6 Qe7e8
52. Ci4i3 Nd2f3
53. Rj3xj7 Rd8d1+
54. Ki1j2 Rd1d2+
55. Bg4i2 Rd2xi2+
56. Ci3xi2 Qe8j3+
57. Kj2xj3 Af8g6+
58. Kj3j2 i7xh6
59. i5xh6 Nf3xg5
60. f4xg5 Rg8e8
61. Ci2j4 Re8e2+
62. Kj2i3 Re2i2+
63. Ki3xi2 Bc2f5+
64. Ki2i1 Ag6h5
65. Cj4xh5 Ki8xj7
66. Ch5i7# 1-0

And finally what is this "odd bug" you're saying?

:) most people want have the programs stronger...

Thanks. I found a program as solution. With "CPUkiller" it is possible to make the 3 seconds levels weaker.

Gothic Vortex is a program that is difficult to beat. My friend redsales beat gothic vortex in two occassions, but he is a strong player and he had a rating of about 2000 in tournament play. I myself was never able to beat it and my rating here is between 1600 and 1700 these days. Gothic Vortex is tough to beat because it has a strong opening book, and most of us don't know what is in the book. If we knew the openings, we might have a better chance. In general, some principles of classic chess openings apply to Gothic Chess, but gambits and sacrifices are tricky in Gothic chess and that is why the program is so difficult to beat. I have seen the program sacrifice knights in a way that at first seems to give me a huge advantage, then five or six moves later it crushes me completely. I think it is very challenging, and therefore a lot of fun. Like all programs, it has the odd bug, but it is not as bad as some people here have claimed. If you read some people complaining about the program, sometimes they are just trying to get under Ed Trice's skin.

I believe the amateur level is even weaker than the novice level, right ? I am not able to beat any level of that program, I don´t even see a chance. But I can play normal chess, not so well, but on some servers I have an ELO 1400 rating in normal chess. Has anybody the same experience with Gothic Vortrex ??? Thanks. I am really interested. ;-)

Just read it.. great article..

And speaking of which.. When is Mr. Trice going to be allowed out of the corner?? I mean.. hasn't he been Banned long enough?

Funny, I read that same article not an hour ago!