Anyone with a more academic than average interest in why computers have such a difficult modeling human thought might enjoy reading "Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter. It doesn't particularly address the Falkbeer Counter Gambit, nor even the Blackmar-Diemer (sorry, I just love that name), but it does have a rather lengthy and--for me, at least--enlightening discussion on the problems of modeling human intuition in computer language. Be warned: the book is long and as dense as fudge.

FYI, Ed is the author of a pretty mean checkers program in addition to Vortex, and I am always interested in hearing from anyone in the know how "chess thinking", and the intuition you always here about in chess, is mimicked on computers. (preference for non-technical discussion!)

Hi Matthew,

"Chess thinking", as you say, really occurs in two forms in a chess program.

1. Search
2. Evaluation

At some point in time, as the program generates POSITIONS from its move generator, it must stop, and, WITHOUT searching, evaluate the position.

The is called a LEAF NODE EVALUATION, and, at best, it is a crap shoot. The dominant form of the evaluation is material, and because no search is performed at this stage, something deadly can be one or two moves away, and the program does not know it.

The good news: all leaf nodes are in the distant (8 plies, 10 plies, or more) in the future, so, statistically, ANY ONE SINGLE NODE will most likely NOT be a factor in the outcome of the game.

More good news: millions of leaf nodes are evaluated, most are junk and discarded, and this filtering process means that only the "balanced" positions survive to be passed down further into the tree.

So, "chess thinking" is really an idiotic form of trying millions of things that don't work, distilling this down into just one PRINCIPLE VARIATION, which is the analysis you see as the search builds.

The "PV" is the result of all of the lead node evals being passed back and forth through the ALPHA BETA search. The APLHA side always wants to play the move leading to the biggest score for it, and the BETA side always wants to play the move leading to the smallest score for the ALPHA side.

In this way, one side makes the "strongest move", and the other side makes the best reply to it, and so on.

Where the "intelligence" comes in is in the leaf mode evaluation routine.

There are way to encode positions that are known wins/losses/draws so that the leaf node eval will OVERRIDE the material score.

This takes intelligence.

For example, if you have 1 knight, and your opponent has just his king, you would not want that to be scored as +3 pawns for the knight (say + 300) since it is a dead draw.

I am surprised at how many commercial programs will start to search in such a K+N vs. K position and return a +300 score and actually try to win.

Vortex makes no such errors. In fact, Vortex knows NN vs. K is not a +600 score since so many NN vs. K positions are drawn. It will not "dismiss" the position as a mere draw, since a falible player can mess up the ending and walk into a mate.

But, Vortex would prefer two unconnected passed pawns on the a- and j-files rather than having 2 knights, since its evaluation function has intelligence identifying which types of endgames lead to wins.

Vortex can identify ANY position with X pawns vs. Y pawns as a win, even with a 1-ply search! This took a great deal of intelligent coding!! It has a "pawn evaluator" that is pretty much always correct. So, Vortex will sometimes swap pieces like crazy as the endgame approaches, only to be able to take you into an incredibly complex king and pawn ending where it will win with no trouble.

There are many such "patterns" that make up its intelligence. It knows R + P endings well, it knows Bishop + wrong Rook's Pawn draws WITHOUT having to search (meaning the leaf node eval will handle it properly in an instant) and many such thematic ideas that will overpower the material evaluator.

Once I hook up the 5-piece Gothic Chess endgame databases to it in a RAM buffer, its play will be amazing as the endgame approaches.

I am not there yet though.

Actually, she asked if it would be ok if someone would paint the letters onto her topless, and the 3 men in the room whirled around looking for anything resembling a very small paint brush!
Clearly she is the "prettiest" Gothic Chess player there is. She also holds a Law Degree and is an MD who obtained that training while in Russia.

I am having a blast here on the set, hoping my wife does not mind I am here longer than I thought I would be.

The pictures are being done tastefully, and I will have them online one day next week at GothicChess.org for those who might be curious.

Take a look at this position:

WhiteShark vs. nantonas

White's Queen is under attack by Black's knight, but the Chancellor/Rook/Archibishop threat cannot be countered, and black is steamrollered!

The Chancellor takes the pawn even with the Archbishop retreating to cover i8. Then, the shark sacrifices the Chancellor to force a mate that cannot be avoided.

All this while shark allows his own king to be placed in artificial peril that would draw even seasoned veterans into the attack that evaporates very quickly.

Be careful where you go swimming with this shark!

I think 21...Af5 might save the draw (instead of 21... Ag8?? which loses.)

If 22. Cxi7+ Kj8 the white Queen is denied g4 with the Archbishop on f5, and the sacrifice 23. Cxj7+?? would lose here.

WhiteShark, how would you cotinue if 21...Af5 was played?

Well White Shark can't answer as he is a Brain Pawn but i can:)

After 21...Af5 there is the forced(i think) line for both:
22.Cxi7+ Kj8 23.Ai5 Ah4+ 24.Axh4 Ne2 25.Aj5! Cf6 and now the 26.Ng4 or 26.Ci5 wins.

Can anyone find a move for Black to refute the win?

Purrdyn sent me the following message, which was given the subject line "WhiteShark":

<after all no cheater like you and softwaremaster500 - and he knows he's got to watch his butt vs me ... >8)

I think all of us who were around when that loser was banned know who this is. This is an unprovoked message I received, just because I complimented WhiteShark on his excellent play.

I suggest that players put that individual on their enemies list at once. Usually he starts with something benign, then he starts posting all over the place to annoy the hell out of everyone.

21...Af5 22.Cxi7+ Kj8 23.Ai5

And here Chessmaster1000 offered 23...Ah4+ to delay the invetiable.

But, why not take the Chancellor with 23...Kxi7 here? I offer:

23...Kxi7 24. Ag6+ Kh6 25. Ai5+ Ki7 with a draw.

Everything else looks to lose for white.

<>21...Af5 22.Cxi7+ Kj8 23.Ai5

>And here Chessmaster1000 offered 23...Ah4+ to >delay the invetiable.

>But, why not take the Chancellor with 23...Kxi7 >here? I offer:

>23...Kxi7 24. Ag6+ Kh6 25. Ai5+ Ki7 with a draw.

Yeah you are right. I didn't looked at the position when i've given the line and i analysed everything in my mind, so i thought that after 23...Kxi7 the discovered check would bring to the King big problems and i rejected this line as good for White, but i didn't count the g4 square is guarded so the Queen can't go there.

>Everything else looks to lose for white.

Maybe but i have something else in my mind, and this time i will analyse it on board for not making again such mistakes.

So it looks like ...Af5 will hold off against the immediate Cxi7+, so the hunt is on now for maybe a delayed attack, or some other improvement for white.

Hunting through some of my old junk, I found the first ever game of Gothic Chess ever played.

Dated July 10, 2000:

1. Nh3 d5 2. i3 Nh6 3. Bi2 Nc6 4. e3 Af6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ne2 Be6 7. Ng3 g6 8. Ae2 Qd7 9. 0-0 Cd6 10. b3 0-0-0 11. Ba3 Ce8 12. Bb2 Bg7 13. Ad3 Ci8 14. Ac5 Qe8 15. d4 e4 16. Qe2 Bf8 17. Aa4 i5 18. c4 i4 19. cxd5!? ixh3 20. dxc6 hxi2 21. cxb7+ Kxb7?! 22. Axe8! ixh1=Q+ 23. Cxh1 Rxe8 24. Qb5+ Ka8 25. Qc6+ Kb8 26. Qb5+ Kc8 27. d5! Bd7?? 28. Qa6+ Kb8 29. Bxf6 j5 30. Bd4 c5 31. dxc6 e.p. Bxc6 32. Qxa7+ Kc8 33. Cc1 Re6 34. Bb6 1-0

The official 2004 BrainKing Championship for Gothic Chess is entering into the last open section, round 3. Rounds 4 and 5 will be closed, with section and tournament winners from previous rounds participating.

Win this round, and you get to bypass the semifinals and go directly to the finals. Win your section, and you get to the semifinals next round.

Click the Round 3 signup link to join.

OK.....I'll say it. I'd love to play Gothic Chest with her!! LOL:)

I told my wife I found the perfect wallpaper... now I sleep outside...

For anyone who is in the Philly area, I just moved back down...I'd love to organize a small group to play OTB once month or so...anyone interested, send me a messgae and I'll try to get things going.

Matthew

is perhaps my now finished game against Slate with 90 played moves ( has anybody a game with more moves :)?)
This game also is an example for an interesting ending with orthodox pieces -queen against rook,bishop,knight since here and the queen had no chance!

I seems to me that Slate's resignation was premature. Perhaps he felt his King was too far away. However, I can't see how Black can make progress: His Rook is tied to his c-Pawn and moving his King over to support it would allow White to get his King over to a2 with an almost certain draw (assuming best play, which might be a stretch for mere mortals playing a R+P endgame). By the way, the notoriety of the R+RP+BP vs R endgame goes back to Marshall-Rubinstein, San Sebastian, 1911 and it is just as drawn on a Gothic board as it is on a regular chess board since the dynamics of R+P endings are determined by how close the closer side of the board is to the Pawn(s); the extra width on the other side makes no difference (as long as the Pawns are all on one side of the board).

Which Game? I didn`t find it in Scubabisto`s profile.

Game ends April 1 2004.

Game ID 309251

HerculesBeast anticonformista
23. March 2004, 03:50:47

1. g2-g4 d7-d6
2. h2-h3 Nb8-c6
3. c2-c3 i7-i6
4. d2-d4 Bh8-i7
5. Ni1-j3 Bi7xc1
6. Qd1xc1 Ag8-h6
7. Qc1-c2 f7-f5
8. Ce1-f3 g7-g6
9. g4-g5 Ah6-g7
10. i2-i4 h7-h6
11. g5xh6 Ag7xh6
12. Cf3-h4 Ce8-f6
13. Ch4xh6 Ni8xh6
14. Qc2-d2 Rj8-h8
15. Ag1-j4 Cf6-h7
16. Nj3-i5 Ch7-f7
17. Ni5xg6+ Kf8-g7
18. Ng6xh8 Cf7xh8
19. Bh1xc6 b7xc6
20. Rj1-g1+ Kg7-h7
21. Qd2-g5 Qd8-f8
22. i4-i5 Nh6-j5
23. Nb1-d2 Bc8-a6
24. O-O-O Ch8-f7
25. Qg5-g6+ Kh7-i7
26. e2-e3 Ba6-e2
27. Rd1-e1 Be2-h5
28. Qg6-g3 e7-e5
29. f2-f4 e5-e4
30. Qg3-f2 a7-a5
31. Rg1-g5 a5-a4
32. Re1-g1 d6-d5
33. h3-h4 a4-a3
34. b2-b3 Ki7-i8
35. Aj4-h3 Bh5-g4
36. Ah3-i4 Bg4-h5
37. Rg5xh5 i6xh5
38. Ai4xj5 c6-c5
39. Rg1-g6 c5xd4
40. e3xd4 Ra8-e8
41. Nd2-f1 Cf7-e7
42. Aj5-h6+ Qf8xh6
43. Rg6xh6 e4-e3
44. Qf2-e2 Ce7-e4
45. Kc1-c2 Ce4xf4
46. Nf1-g3 Cf4xe2+
47. Ng3xe2 Re8-f8
48. Ne2-f4 Rf8-e8
49. Kc2-d3 Re8-e4
50. Nf4-e2 Re4xh4
51. Kd3xe3 Rh4-h2
52. j2-j4 f5-f4+
53. Ne2xf4 Rh2xa2
54. Nf4xd5 Ra2-a1
55. Rh6-a6 h5-h4
56. Nd5-f4 a3-a2
57. Ke3-f3 Ra1-f1+
58. Kf3-g4 a2-a1C
59. Ra6xa1 Rf1xa1
60. Kg4xh4 Ra1-a3
61. Nf4-e6 Ra3xb3
62. Ne6xc7 Rb3xc3
63. Nc7-b5 Rc3-c4
64. j4-j5 Rc4-b4
65. Nb5-c3 Rb4xd4+
66. Kh4-h5 Ki8-i7
67. i5-i6 Rd4-c4
68. Nc3-e2 Rc4-c5+
69. Kh5-i4 j7xi6
70. j5xi6 Ki7xi6
71. Ki4-h4 Ki6-h6
72. Kh4-g4 Rc5-j5
73. Kg4-h4 Rj5-j4+
74. Kh4-i3 Kh6-i5
75. Ne2-g3 Rj4-a4
76. Ng3-f5 Ra4-a3+
77. Ki3-h2 Ki5-h5
78. Kh2-g2 Kh5-g4
79. Nf5-h6+ Kg4-f4
80. Kg2-h2 Ra3-a6
81. Nh6-i4 Kf4-g4
82. Kh2-g2 Kg4-h4
83. Ni4-h2 Ra6-a2+
84. Kg2-g1 Kh4-h3
85. Nh2-f1 Ra2-g2+
86. Kg1-h1 Rg2-b2
87. Kh1-g1 Rb2-j2
88. Nf1-e3 Kh3-g3
89. Ne3-f1+ Kg3-f3
90. Nf1-h2+ Kf3-e3
91. Kg1-g2 Rj2xh2+
92. Kg2xh2

Ends with white's King and knight versus black's King and Rook.
Annotations, anyone?

You can see Dredger, Juangrande and Aizkorri lost a l l their games on time (not only against me)! Ask them why they havn`t played,it is not my problem.
And to my draw against Oliotto: You as experienced chessplayer know that it is the first intention in a chessgame to equalize the game with the black pieces and to realize an advantage with the white pieces.
In addition it is within the rules to finish a chessgame to a draw with agreement and for Black it is often enough to get a draw.There is no reason to complain something.
I hope that your remark is not an announcement to withdraw the promised prize once again.

The only GC games played by oliotto are all this $250 tourney except for 2 normal games against.........get this.......skunky and fishy. Now that really is an amazing coincidence.
Undefeated too except for the draw. Why would anyone want to draw after 11 when they are undefeated in all time games?

If someone is suggesting that Caissus and Oliotto could be the same person, please don't waste your time. It's an utter nonsense.

The only way to go to the next round both of them is a draw, if we suppose of course that they will win all of their games, just like it happened. So they agreed to it. It is totally fair and legal. It also happens at Chess, Football, etc...

So when you say: "I smell something fishy, and if I find out that some wheeling and dealing has gone on behind the scenes", do you mean the draw aggrement?
I don't see something illegal. It's not the best thing to see, but nothing illegal at all.

Yes it is not legal, but what about if one player offers a draw at move 6 for example, and the other accepts. HOW anyone can prove that both were agreed for a draw behind the scenes in order to make some profit from it? No one can prove it and since the rules allow you to offer a draw whenever you want it and your opponent has the right to accept it, i don't really see any illegal thing.

As for the players that stopped playing, yes it's strange and i would like to know the reason too. Was only one player that stopped playing or it was 2 or more?

Great thought: three players in a tournement and two of them agree to a draw to beat the third? That means,that they now play better against the third player?? Really,a great idea,really!.
Have you ever played another sport in your life than chess? I think no,because these are ideas of an only-chessplayer.Me,I´m also playing tennis in a team and such thoughts are very strange for me and can poison the gameculture completely!
For myself I can say I only think to the next game or the next round in a tournement! It is totally clear,that I fight in the next round against all opponents in the same way to win the title (and the prize)!

For me,I saw my position as a little bit bader and was satisfied as Black to have a draw in this game.Please ask Oliotto for his consideration himself.But as pawn he cannot post on this board.To your first question please ask the other players themselves.

They agreed a draw because it fitted both their requirements, it's completely normal tournament strategy.

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.

Since my name was mentioned as someone who lost on time, I'll just mention that I simply got too busy and didn't manage to login within the time limit. $250 is not enough of an inducement for me drop the other irons I have in the fire, so to speak (and I suspect this to be the case for most members of this site). I apologize if my inaction aroused any suspicion, but it seems rather paranoid to attribute any of this to behind-the-scenes dealing. From a public relations point of view, threatening to withdraw the prize would seem to arouse more suspicion than short draw agreements and mass losses on time. Is $250 too much of a financial burden for the tournament organizer to bear? Perhaps this response is overboard as well; I apologize if anyone perceives it so. However, I honestly can't see why anyone would go to all the trouble to make deals with other players for a mere $250 ($25,000 would be a different story ...) and so I admit to being astounded that such suspicions would even be considered. Of course, it could just be that I'm naive...

Hm....,what have we here? Again a cheating?

Stats:
GothicInventor's Rating: 2403 (111-0-0)
Caissus Rating: 2218 (38-2-3)
jaungrande Rating: 1745 (67-2-39)

==================

Why Juan might play Gothic to the death in their matches, yet make mistakes in others for a quick end of game - well a lot of time for myself included, when I play some of the "best" people, I will study and study the board as much as possible. While with others, I'll take a quick look and make a move. I do that all the time in Spider Line4.... which usually leads me to make stupid mistakes against people who "statisticly" I should win against. So it could be that juangrande see's you as one of the better players, and brings out his best game against you.

====================

Anyway, in my opinion - With 111 wins, and 0 loses - if anyone can beat Gothic (or get a draw out of him), they desirve to win the tournament! :-)

Ed, I appreciate your compliment regarding my playing ability and am delighted that you have found any of my games worthy of archiving. I still have trouble with the suggestion that there might be cheating involved, though. I realize that I'm not the tournament director, but I would suggest simply awarding the prize to the winner as was promised at the outset. There's been no cheating. I fail even to see how a player could benefit by throwing a game in a winner-takes-all tournament.

Perhaps some background on my playing method would be illuminating. I almost never resort to analyzing over a board (electronic or physical); the most I allow myself is a sheet of paper to record moves to help me visualize the variations. This, of course, makes me more subject to the possibility of making an egregious blunder. My 11-move loss to Caissus was due to just such a blunder: Nothing more, nothing less.

Amen ! I will tell you a secret now : We will marry soon! ;-)

And when were you planning on telling me, Caissus? :-)

but damn those mice are smart. Who would have guessed eh!!!

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.

On average you will float in around 1500-1600 in USCF chess since there are so many "book players" out there.

I think the ratings on here are too high by 200-400 points on average.

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

bowling gives a more suitable description of this #! :-)

What is the quickest mate?
I have:
Bobes tangram 21. June 2004, 21:49:21
1. c3 g6
2. g3 h6
3. c2 h7
4. h3 i5
5. xi5 xc2
6. xc2 xc2

Is there any connection between Gothic Chess and Gothic Checkers?

Absolutely none, other than the common first adjective.

Oh, okay, I was just wondering if you had invented it too. :)

neither :D

LOL:) surely you jest:)

The figurine notation is international. In the Settings section you can change the notation to show standard English (or Czech) letters for pieces.

If I invented a game that I always won I'd be embarrassed, my opponents would think I'd factored in my personality.

Lucky for you that you are not that talented, so you don't have to worry about this.

LMAO@ Ed. I bet the talented individual who invented the mousetrap,is also a milionaire?

Maybe we should be embarrassed that none of us can beat GothicInventor. :)