HalfPawn: That is of absolute no interest for me, so as if you would report on a woodo-wally dice game.

Actually there is running an attempt to stimulate discussions on a restricted 10x8 variant by some provoking henchmen. Maybe that normal traffic in their genuine forum is vanishing, so several vasalls are trying to pick here to boost their theme that way again.

Here there are so many free nice 10x8 chess variants like Janus, CRC and MBC. I suggest to discuss here only games which are or could be supplied here.

HalfPawn: You must be a genius, being able to derive that most of the French chess players in the world disagree with Walter on that matter from that article and those posts. Almost of the same level as Trice.

WhisperzQ: Thanks!

Previously I posted a message here asking for some common courtesies and to pursue the "Ed Trice thing" at the Ed Trice site.

I seems some of you can't do this so four messages have been removed either because they bring matters here from another site, are a slur on a person's character, or don;t make sense becuase another post has been removed.

No names named, but it will be apparent to you if your post is deleted. Continued actions such as these will result in more deletions WITHOUT notice.

Jules: Hi Jules, it was you and Pedro that replaced me as moderators of the Gothic Chess board, by the way. I don't have any hard feelings about it. The board wasn't in business much longer after that, a couple of months, say? And you both stayed on with its merged self here.

Keep it nice.

I say this as I know there is alot of history and feelings.

I know this is off-topic but I just had to laugh when I read Trice's comments about "giving me bets to place round after round". It IS true that he gave me 6 bets for the first 6 round of this pond ( http://brainking.com/cz/Pond?bms=5&g=10 )
and when he saw he was at 30th place after round 6, he stopped sending me his bets. Sorry about this post not being related to 10x8 chess variants, but I just couldn't help myself.

TheLamer: They haven't gone unnoticed, just not responded too. Least ways not until right now. Why should I lower myself to his level? I went to the link just now. I didn't see my name in those posts, but I had seen it somewhere else over there where he calls me a weak player and a few other things. He's entitled to his opinion of me. Unlike him, I never said I was all that good of a Chess player. Just because someone can play a game better than myself doesn't make them a better person. It just means they can play a game better than me. He even talks about his misadventures at the Run Around the Pond discussion board. We all know he never even played one game of it under his own handle, but he sure talked a good game of it. His well documented fear of losing any game prevented him from playing Ponds or Dark Chess. It is a shame too. I believe that Ed would probably be the best Dark Chess player of all if he'd just play the game. But as anyone that has played Dark Chess knows, you will lose a certain percentage of games from time to time no matter how well you play.

I just recently read all the posts on this board from it's creation until August 4th, 2004. How he was removed the first time as moderator is quite enlightening compared to how he reveals it on his web site. The first removal:
___________ _________ _________ ___________
Fencer 16. January 2004, 09:31:21
Hi Ed,
I don't like the way how you moderate Gothic Chess discussion board. There are currently 43 banned users and it is not normal. No other board has such problems. Moreover, even if you feel insulted by several other people, you cannot misuse the moderator function to solve your personal problems. A moderator must be kind of adaptable and show some basic diplomatic skills to do the job properly. I've been watching your activities for several weeks [or even months?] and, unfortunately, I don't think that you can moderate any BrainKing discussion board any longer.
I am taking over this board.
__________ _____________ ___________ __________
GothicInventor from the Gothic Chess site March 9th 2006
...so I left the moderator function of my own accord. I sent the message to Fencer myself. Subsequently, after several months, I was re-appointed moderator after whoever was in charge was removed, but I was acting in the capacity of co-moderator. I did very little moderation of any kind from that point forward. Again, a few months later, someone named "Bumble" then posted a comment one day saying "who wants to be moderator of this board", and that person took my place. There was no "ousting" of any kind as you suggested


This is not at all what happened. It is me that Bumble removed, not Ed. It was Fencer that Ed replaced as moderator when he came back the second time, not some other person. This happened way before I had ever played Gothic Chess or visited the discussion board. Somehow he got the moderator's job back a few months later. And again Fencer removed him after that time too. It is then that I was made moderator. On my very first visit to the discussion board! Fencer must've really been ticked off at Ed. When Ed was removed the second time there were no Global Moderators. July 9th, 2004 is when I became moderator. My first act was to unban everyone, including Ed. It is Fencer that banned him two more times while I was moderator. I only ever banned two people, danoschek and some guy that posted racial epitats about the losers of the world wars. I will continue my research of my own actions eventually. I learned a few things about people and moderating since those times. Ed's first banning caused a lot of trouble in the discussion board as he had a lot of friends get mad and flame the board as did his detractors. I generally let this go on for awhile. When I finally took sides with those that didn't agree with the game being patented, he went ballistic and got banned again. A few months went by in relative quiet as for some reason the groupies didn't do a "Bring back Ed" campaign this second time around. Then I started to get messages from Fencer to remove the ban on Ed. We sent a few messages about it and I did remove the ban. I also warned Fencer that Ed was trouble and I'd probably not survive as moderator. I was right, but not in how I thought I'd be. The global moderator's position was only a month or two old at this time. I was removed without any notice from them. I have posted at length about this on the BrainKing discussion board about a month after my removal last year. Ed's victory was a short lived one. Fencer abolished the Gothic Chess discussion board shortly thereafter and then removed Gothic Chess from the site completely.


If he wants to re-create history on his site, it is his prerogative. I am surprised that he's letting Thad have his say and that he is responding to Thad's assertions. I remember when Thad was one of Ed's supporters. It reminds me of the saying, "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate."


Now that I've played a few games of Embassy Chess I can say the game is superior to Gothic Chess. Not by much, but it is a better game. I don't play the random version of it, so I can't speak for that version. I do know that if it wasn't for Ed and his intransigence over Gothic Chess, those two games would almost certainly not be on this site at this time.

Edit 3-17-6 After further research I have found I was wrong in some of my rememberances listed here. Fencer only banned Ed once while I was moderator, I banned him twice. And the guy with racial epitats was unbanned upon my ousting. I'm going to call it quits again as there's still another 14 pages for me to read.

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13972&trnst=0&u=2644

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=14677&trnst=0&u=2644

JinkyOng: They drive halfway across town to save two pence on a fillup of gas, burning much more than that along the way.

Sounds like some poeple I know. ;-)

WhisperzQ: Machines don't think. They will overthrow a perfectly good line of play to gain 1 more point even if the replacement line is laughable. They drive halfway across town to save two pence on a fillup of gas, burning much more than that along the way.

JinkyOng: I guess, the point being, that each move made is an opportunity for the machine to make a mistake (or an iljudgement) rather a decisive strike (I think that machines tend to be defensive by nature ... the what-ifs are designed not to lose, rather than to win).

Ergo ... I am a machine ... which loses ... LOL

JinkyOng: Yes, now if I could just take advantage of this flaw. :)

Walter Montego: Machines have 1 constantly exploitable fault. They must make a move on each turn.

Walter Montego: The SMIRF offered a draw and I accepted. I wasn't able to see a way to profitably trade a Knight for a Pawn or two and try to get an attack going. I have the feeling SMIRF never would do that either.

So the game ended after 66 moves and no Pawns captured, nor a Pawn making a capture. I'll challenge SMIRF to another game in a few days. I'm thinking this game was a fluke, but there's something to thinking longer range even if it's just a vague plan in trying to beat a machine. We all know how much the nature of a game can change with the placement of even one Pawn.

JinkyOng: people can be too. ;)

ColonelCrockett: Machines are overrated.

Walter Montego: seeing as the machine didn't stop the blocking of all those files I'd say you have already tested SMIRF's programming . . . I wouldn't begin to know how Pythagoras defeats SMIRF . . . I never have . . .

ColonelCrockett: I'm thinking if I can figure how the machine evalutes a position and then get the position so that I'm control of it that the machine can be beat because they don't think outside of their programming. This must be why Pythagoras' methods work so well for him. I haven't defeated SMIRF in a long time.

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). ;)

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.

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

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

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

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.....

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.

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.

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).

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".

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 .

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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.