tedbarber: I agree with you, it cost everyone including Ed Trice. I still don't understand this.. by the way I like to play 8x10 and 8x8 Chess :)

Spirou: I also like Chinese Chess and Shogi. Embassey Chess has 1 flaw that I see;the placement of the major peices. But I do agree it is a much better game than Capablanca Random or Capablanca Chess.

tedbarber:

- What is the exact flaw in the placement of major pieces in Embassy Chess?
- Capablanca Chess is certainly inferior to CRC, as it leaves unprotetcted pieces at startup. However, CRC cannot be generally compared with Capablanca or other 8x10 chess variants, as it was created for a very specific reason: avoiding drawn games through randomization of the initial position (Reinhard, please correct me if I'm wrong)

cpaul_d2004 + tedbarber: There is already an attempt to have an english CRC page on Wikipedia. But maybe I will translate the German page myself. Then it might have been more clear, that the intention to create CRC primarily has been to keep computer chess programming interesting. Originally I had not thought about the question, whether it could be interesting to human players too. As experienced from Gothic Chess and since short from Embassy 10x8 chess of course could find interested players. But it is the lack of tradition which prevents it to be widely accepted. Mabye we have to wait another hundred years ...

WhiteTower:There is no long diagonal capability as in Gothic;plus the Queen is misplaced. This of course is my opinion.

tedbarber:This makes it unbalanced and clumsy compared to Gothic or 8x8.

tedbarber: I've played both games, Gothic Chess and Embassy Chess, and I'm here to tell you that the Queens start the game on the same squares in both games! Also the Bishops are on the same squares, and the only other diagonal moving piece, the Cardinal (Archbishop in Gothic) is also on the same square. The only change in the game beside the minor thing of the naming of the pieces is the Kings and Marshalls are on different squares. I'll grant you the switching these two pieces might make a big difference in some of the openings, but the play will all be the same later in the game. Least ways in a way that us humans can tell apart. And by the way, neither of them move diagonal. What do you mean by the long diagonal? Are you sure you're playing Embassy Chess and not confusing it with some other game?

This game seems like a real good game to me and is as playable as Gothic Chess is my opinion, plus it doesn't suffer from all the of baggage and feuding of Gothic Chess. All the Pawns are guarded in the intitial set up. If anything, it looks more traditional having the King and Queen side by side. The pieces are arranged in Grand Chess' order and that game predates Gothic by about 30 years.

There's three major pieces. The board has an even number of squares along the back row, just how can you place them to have balance when comparing one half of the board to the other half? Doesn't sound possible to me. Gothic Chess is no more balanced than Embassy Chess or Bird's or Capablanca.

tedbarber: You should try this game if you like diagonal threats! Them Januses make lots of trouble. I finally started to play Janus Chess a little better, but I think I like Embassy Chess more. Hard to say as I've not played Embassy Chess too many times yet. I did teach myself a couple good little traps in Janus Chess that I'm not having much success in emulating in Embassy Chess. So I'm starting from the ground up again. Would you like to play a game or two of Embassy or Janus Chess? Or anyone else? I like both games and should give you a run for your money. I move often, but on occasion I might not get to the game for up to four days. I need a new job! 3 or 4 day time limit should keep me from timing out.

I'm going to have to challenge the SMIRF again. Pythagoras gave me some pointers for playing against a machine, but I don't know if I'll be able to impliment them into my play against it. I still kind of like the "winging it" method of my play. :)

SMIRF Engine: Why it does make sense to create a game for computers to play? If you are looking for real AI challenges you can try e.g. Arimaa or Dark chess. These are two chess variants where humans are still much superiour to computer. CRC in not more challenging for computer programming then say Gothic or Embassy chess.

Still I think CRC is very good by itself as a game, especially if you like Fischer random chess idea, which avoids memorized book opening play.

Walter Montego: This placement was tried in Gothic;the advantage was too one-sided for White.

Walter Montego: I like Janus;but seem to Lose more than I ussally do in other Chess games. Really the only Chess games I dislike are Dark Chess,Capablanca Chess,and all Random Placement Chess Games.

Walter Montego: When I get a free game.

HalfPawn: Gothic chess used to be a popular game here amongst the chess enthusiasts. However it seems that the creator of this site and the creator of the game Gothic Chess could not see eye to eye and the game was removed. There are those that are still sadly disappointed with the removal of the game (I for one) and those that are glad to see the game gone. Probably not because the game was bad, but rather the Inventor was a difficult man for some to get along with. For more information on Gothic Chess you can go to http://www.gothicchess.com/

tedbarber: Current win rates on this site for Embassy Chess:

Statistics
White won 64 (48.48 %)
Black won 65 (49.24 %)
Draws 3 (2.27 %)

Seems fairly even so far.

HalfPawn: It is a game almost identical to this game http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=41 and was derived from Bird's Chess and Capablanca Chess. Somewhere in that link to the Gothic site has the history of the game. I went to the link and it shows the set up. Compare it to Embassy Chess and you'll see they're very similiar games.

tedbarber: I just noticed that having the King and Queen side by and off center as they are in Embassy Chess makes the set up very similiar to the Queen's Gambit openings of regular Chess. The Queen cannot attack the King directly in Gothic Chess, but it is a really possibility in Embassy Chess as in regular Chess. The Kingside Bishop being further to the side now attacks Black's Queen's Pawn when it is moved two squares initially, so this will play a lot different.

I'll have to check this out some more. I had stopped trying the Queen's Pawn just recently and had been going with the Marshall's Pawn to start the game as White, but now I'll have to give the Queen's Pawn another look through. I suppose it's always a learning deal when there's no book or history on a game. For some reason I haven't tried opening the King's Pawn, even though that's my preferred opening in regular Chess. The Cardinal's Pawn looks to be trouble as it too isn't guarded when move two squares, but I'm kind of conservative in my approach to Chess. Those players that like to throw bait out there or like sacrificies can do that. As in Gothic Chess, the extra power on the board makes the King less safe and the opportunities to attack more.

HalfPawn: As far as I know it is only played here. I made reference to it on a Chess variants Capablanca comments page, but the game has yet to get very widely known. It's only a couple of years old and it so similiar to the other four games of this type that it might be sometime before any of them become widely played. Gothic Chess would seem to have the most current players, but things change over time.
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/capablanca.html

For some reason it's hard for the larger board variants to get many players. It's probably do to the lack of on hand playing equipment. If I ever get around to it, I'm going to make some larger Chess boards and some extra pieces. I'll still the problem of finding someone to play though. :(
That's why I play here. Regular Chess is tough enough for most people. These larger games with a couple extra unfamiliar pieces thrown in are just too much for a lot of people it seems. I like the games and think they're fun and challenging to play.

HalfPawn: I had no idea there were so many variants! It appears from cv.org that there are thousands?? How can this be possible?

How can be possible that there are so many ants? LOL!


The term SMIRF is in that post as I see someone with that in their name here. Same person/program/thing or something different?

Smirf is a program that plays 8x8 Chess and Fischer Random Chess as also 10x8 Capablanca Random Chess. Smirf plays here also with the name SMIRF ENGINE.


And why all the fuss over which variant is better?? That makes no sense! There are so many to play just pick what you like and play what you want!

Instead of wasting time by playing inferior variants we must decide which are better in order to play them.....

HalfPawn: SMIRF is a program that plays Chess and some Chess variants such as Embassy Chess, Capablanca Chess, Janus Chess, and Capablanca Random Chess (CRC). I believe it no longer supports Gothic Chess. He too had a falling out with the patent holder of Gothic Chess. He goes by SMIRFengine on this site. There's also a Colonel Cricket on this site.

Reinhard is the guy's name that has SMIRF. He has a website that tells you about SMIRF and some of the larger board Chess variants. One of the pages deals with assigning strength values to the pieces on a 10 × 8 sized board. A few people have different ideas about it and how the pieces might change in strength as a game progresses. This is to help one decide if it's wise to trade a Bishop for Knight. It's not always straight forward thing in regular Chess even if most people use the P=1 N=3 B=3 R=5 Q=9. The larger board makes some pieces worth less in value to others, so the positioning of the piece greatly affects its value. And then there's the newer pieces themselves. As a Queen is valued more than the two pieces it can move as, the Marshall and Cardinal can have this too.
http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html

If you can read German, you should use that site's links for that. Reinhard's native tongue is German.

Walter Montego: Thank you for the information;I hope it helps me;since Ed is so obstinate about his silly patent and is destroying a good game because of it. I have tried his live site and there are too many problems with his Java set-up.

HalfPawn: Why are some games balanced while others aren't?

Because in some games there is a line that makes a player(1st or 2nd player, usually the 1st due to the tempo advantage) to have the advantage. Another reason or actually a definition to the word balanced, is the symmetry a game has. Another one is the ability to develop easily the pieces. Another is the variety of opening lines available to black after white plays. For example at Bird's Chess, after white's Ch3 black is restricted to play only 3 moves or else it would lose....
Embassy Chess somes close to Gothic Chess in all these areas but fails in the ease of developing the pieces. With this i don't say that at Embassy Chess is difficult to develop the pieces, but only that at Gothic it is easier.....

Walter Montego: the name isn't "Crickett".

Pythagoras: On what do you base this developing pieces is easier in Gothic Chess than Embassy Chess? I don't have a problem getting my pieces out in Embassy Chess. If anything I've found it slightly easier than in Gothic Chess. The Cardinal and Marshall can both move as Knights from the start of the game and not step on each other. Not so in Gothic Chess. Embassy Chess seems to move fast too. Lots of trouble right from the start. It's going to take me awhile to figure what's going if I ever do. By the way, you are going to start moving next Monday? You can't develope them if you don't move them. :)

Walter Montego: Not time to reply to all other but the last was goooood! "By the way, you are going to start moving next Monday? You can't develope them if you don't move them. :)"
<----Some smileys here/just enable emoticons to see them, i know you hate emoticons and have them disabled but anyway.....

I've tried it in one game so far. I did it wrong, or it's not the way for White to start. My opponent accepted the gambit and I've been covering my tracks since then. I thought his move after the check wasn't the best one for him, but he's taken the initiative in any case.

HalfPawn: It seems like GI answered all of your questions there . . . If you have any others just ask over there or PM me.

Hello friends of Chess960, 10x8 CRC and other FullChess games,

the new SMIRF Beta has been cleaned from old ballast, and its editing surface hopefully has been redesigned a little bit more clearly. Moreover now a STL DLL is no longer used in this package.

Download could be done via http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html .

The engine itself has not been changed much. But for those, who have missed the last updates, progresses in 10x8 chess nevertheless should be noticable.

Best Regards, Reinhard.

Two examples of SMIRF's actual strength:

[Event "10x8 Bird's Array Test (20 sec/move)"]
[Site "CHESSBOX-BIG-XP"]
[Date "2006.02.08"]
[Time "09:09:22"]
[Round "1"]
[White "ChessV (Version 2006-Jan-13)"]
[Black "SMIRF (Version MS-150)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "RS"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbcqkabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/
RNBCQKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. Nc3 g6 {(09.02=) -0.205} 2. Nb5 Na6
{(09.02=) +0.197} 3. f4 d6 {(10.00) +0.695} 4. a3 Qxb5 {(08.01=) +3.973} 5. Ae3
Nh6 {(08.04) +4.605} 6. a4 Qh5 {(08.02) +4.947} 7. h3 Nb4 {(07.35) +5.115} 8.
c4 Ng4 {(08.01) +6.758} 9. a5 Nh2+ {(09.00) +9.285} 10. Kf2 Nxj1 {(07.49)
+9.365} 11. Nj3 Af6 {(08.02=) +8.963} 12. g4 Qj5 {(08.02=) +9.252} 13. a6 c6
{(07.42) +9.055} 14. axb7 Cxb7 {(08.01) +9.727} 15. b3 Axa1 {(07.15) +15.65}
16. Ba3 Qj6+ {(08.02=) +16.49} 17. h4 Ad4 {(08.04=) +16.41} 18. Be4 Axb3
{(07.03) +16.82} 19. Cb1 Ac5 {(08.01) +16.57} 20. Axc5 Cxc5 {(09.00) +15.95}
21. d3 Bd4+ {(08.01) +18.19} 22. Kg2 Qi6 {(08.03) +18.19} 23. e3 Qxi2+ {(07.31)
+20.28} 24. Kg3 Bxg4 {(06.03=) +M~005} 25. exd4 Ch5# {(03.00?) +M~001} 0-1

[Event "Janus Chess Test (20 sec/move)"]
[Site "CHESSBOX-BIG-XP"]
[Date "2006.02.08"]
[Time "10:24:53"]
[Round "2"]
[White "ChessV (Version 2006-Jan-13)"]
[Black "SMIRF (Version MS-150)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "RS"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rjnbkqbnjr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/
RJNBKQBNJR w sKQkq - 0 1"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. e3 e6 {(09.02=) -0.143} 2. Bf3 Nd6
{(09.01) +0.049} 3. Ja3 h6 {(09.01) +0.162} 4. Nd3 Ja6 {(09.00) +0.139} 5. Ng3
Be7 {(09.00) +0.451} 6. Jb1 Nc4 {(08.03=) +0.750} 7. Be2 d5 {(08.14) +0.785} 8.
Ne5 Bh7 {(10.00) +0.779} 9. e4 Bxe4 {(09.15) +1.113} 10. Nxe4 Jxe4 {(10.00)
+0.621} 11. Nxc4 dxc4 {(09.20) +0.514} 12. c3 Jxb1 {(11.00) +1.080} 13. Rxb1
Ni6 {(10.18) +0.932} 14. b3 Qi8 {(09.34) +1.410} 15. Rc1 Ba3 {(09.03) +1.184}
16. Bxc4 Jxc4 {(10.01) +2.459} 17. Qxc4 Bxc1 {(11.00) +2.348} 18. Qb5+ Kf8
{(11.00) +3.012} 19. Qb4+ Kg8 {(11.00) +4.453} 20. a3 Rd8 {(10.09) +7.594} 21.
a4 Bxd2+ {(08.00?) +M~???} 22. Ke2 Qd3+ {(04.00?) +M~???} 23. Kd1 Bxc3+
{(03.00?) +M~???} 24. Kc1 Qd1# {(02.00?) +M~001} 0-1

SMIRF could be downloaded at: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html

Regards, Reinhard.

HalfPawn: Probably not. Smirf has got some little cosmetic changes in its editor view, the engine itself is nearly the same now, but has been compiled with MS VStudio instead of the Borland Builder. ChessV already has been changed during the tournament. Seeing its new release date there must have been some additional changes, but I do not know their details.

Watching the discussions at the GothicChess forum I am shaking my head, seeing what is said about imputed reasons for me to quit. I have explained it sufficiently, but some people insist in their wrong view. So what?!

HalfPawn: My statement has not been directed against you personally. Nevertheless I am angry about that silly rumouring there.

ChessV and SMIRF are currently able to be downloaded and tested. So everybody could investigate pros and cons of both programs. Having matching feedbacks would be fine.

HalfPawn: There are detailed answers on that somewhere here. But again in short: it has been impossible to reconstruct a broken game exactly as it has been when breaking, e.g. the timing is hardly to reset. And you cannot do it alone without the cooperation of your opponent. My opponent has not been willing to cooperate as need be, especially when the reconstruction had failed because of an input error, which unfortunately cannot be corrected simply at that online server. Having had the choice to celebrate endless quarrels or to terminate, I chosed to avoid additional quarrels. I also tried to propose a modus operandi how to handle such situations. But it has been ignored. Instead pressure has been put on me. Because of that has been not helpful at all to rebuild broken games, I left the tournament.

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13693&trnst=0

[Tournament description added ... WQ :}

HalfPawn: Different people - different opinions. But I experienced, what has happened, and I know, what I have suggested. A lot of postings there are not trying to solve any problem, but instead to establish a one-sided view, which seems to be more important to them, than to describe a how-to continue. I hope you have also seen there my first posting from Dec 31 2005, and how it has been ignored without establishing any alternative. In my opinion the organizer of that event should have been more interested to describe a workable way out of that conflict much earlier than to simply put pressure on me. Thus for me it looked like that solving the problem has had no priority, but instead to make a "bad boy" out of me.

HalfPawn: Now why would anyone want to know that? Since the answer is easily "googleable", isn't Embassy well-supported and playable here as it is?

HalfPawn: The US Embassy in Prague sometimes plays very nasty games.

Pedro Martínez: LOL

Pedro Martínez: lol, pedro.