This game is mentioned is Feng's book on Deep Blue, but he calls me a mere "expert" (I was over 2200 at the time and was a moderate master class player) and does not mention my name (cause I upset him with some of my tauntings.) He also mentions that Deep Thought just walks into an easy checkmate, which was not the case at all.

Feng was a bit of an elitist, and there was absolutely no piece of advice you could share with him that he would take. I tried to tell him that the play of Deep Thought in its Center Counter was not that strong. I said it rather plainly, just offering friendly advice, and he said something like (in broken English with a bad accent) "In your weak mind maybe, but machine is high performance."

He started to walk away when I yelled after him "I will crush your machine if it plays the Center Counter and I am given white!" About 20 people heard this, and there was about 2 hours before the last round was to start, and he was convinved of his superiority, so he see up Deep Thought to play Game in 30 with me.

At this time, the program was doing about 700,000 nodes per second, still very fast.

He typed something into his opening book to avoid some of this book play, so I got it out of a main line. Even with its 14 and 15-ply search, it saw the win of a pawn, and no way for me to capitlize on it.

You can see my moves were a tad tactically complex, the thing that drives a program crazy (having multiple hanging pieces and offering more) so it finally succummed to the momentum of the attack.

<>At this time, the program was doing about 700 million nodes per second, still very fast.

That was a true bean counter:-)
Although i think you are wrong. If i remember correctly the number was 700.000 nodes per second and not 700 millions.
Note that the latest version Deeper Blue that beat Kasparov, was having 200.000.000 nodes per second.


>You can see my moves were a tad tactically complex, the thing that drives a program crazy >(having multiple hanging pieces and offering more) so it finally succummed to the momentum of the attack.

All these are not enough to trick the todays Chess-engines on a fast hardware. Sometimes there are, but as i've said very seldom........

Yes 700 thousand I meant. 700 million, egads!

But at least I can say I have won games against World Computer Champions in the game of chess (Deep Thought) and Checkers (Chinook) and I don't think anyone else will be able to say that ever again :)

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

Have chess set makers decided they want to make gothic chess sets?

Only after Ed has been officially contacted for licensing ;)

I intend on getting woodworking equipment soon, and I'll be making the appropriate pieces, plus other historical pieces.

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.

The only thing that you own is the name Gothic Chess. The pieces are already designed in Grand Chess. Very nice I might add, check out their site though the game is played on a 10 X 10 board the pieces used are identical to the ones in Gothic Chess and the game is from the 1970's. The 8 X 10 board is over a hundred years old. Why would I, or anyone else need your permission to make and sell game sets that could be used to play Gothic Chess or any other version of Chess?

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

I knew that before updating to the new system Hydra calculated up to 8 million nodes per second.
In this new system that aparts from 16-Intel Xeons at 3.06 GHz and from 16 FPGA cards, i think i have heard that it can calculate around 16 million nodes per second but i'm not sure at all.

Hydra right now is one of the best Chess playing programs, but i think this is due to it's speed(not only this of course) and Shredder 8 for example on a system like that would be better.....

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.

You might be right about Monopoly and Clue, but you are quite wrong about Battleship. Monopoly is based on copywritten stuff and propietary rules. I'm not sure about Clue. As for Battleship, anyone can sell it. They may or may not be able to call it Battleship, but they can certainly sell it. Just as this site has Battleboats. A la Othello / Reversi. Gothic Chess is in the same class as Reversi. There's no copyright on the rules or play, just the name of the game. I certainly could too make and sell sets of it without your permission. Maybe not call it Gothic Chess, (A name I don't like for this game, but have grown accustomed too), how would you stop me from doing so? Your patent is bull, and we all know it. The patent office might have taken your money and issued you a patent, but it'll never stand up in court. The game is over 100 years old. Changing the initial starting position doesn't make it a new game. It makes it a modification of prior art. None of the pieces are designed by you. In fact, they all predate your birth by many decades or centuries! Same thing for the board and playing rules. You even say the rules are the same as for regular Chess! You site Bird's version of 1875 in an article written by you about Gothic Chess at http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/GothicChessIntro.htm
I, or any game manufacturer could start making Bird's Chess sets and sell them. You just try and get licensing fees for it. Who are you trying to fool? I could enclose with the rules a mention of different starting positions and variants. It'd be cool to make the board be adjustable in size so one could play different games on it, plus throw in extra pieces too.
Since you say you're an expert Checkers player, I assume that you're familiar with playing Checkers where the game is not started from the initial position, but instead the players are given certain moves to make first and then are free to make whatever moves they want? Is that game still Checkers, or should I patent it and demand royalties and licensing fees as you have done for Bird's Chess? This is how it appears to me as to what you have done. Amazingly to me, you have gotten a lot of people to go along with you.

As for you not arguing on this board about it, or telling me where to send my messages, too bad. I like this forum very much and with you not in the moderator's chair others can have a say in it, especially those that disagree with you and your position. And that's whether or not they're knowledgable about patent law or have access to attorneys either.

2¢

Welcome to the board, HUBY40. We should have a Janus Chess tournament in your honor.

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?

yea, if they call it "Gothic Chess", then you have a point Trice. But if someone just has the board, pieces, and sells them without calling it "Gothic Chess", then your patent can not touch it. That is what I believe Walter is trying to say.

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.

I notice Ed didn't answer the part about Checkers, did he?

what about that Kansas City tournament?

First, I never said anything about including the rules of Gothic Chess, so I'm not sure where you are getting that I'm full of crap, but whatever.

What I'm saying is if someone makes a 10x10 board, makes the pieces which are the ones used in GC, then they can sell it.

END OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

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

So sell "Byrd Chess"sets..with a disclaimer its not to be confused with Gothic chess,and be sure to vividly explain the difference in rules.

hahah..right. See Othello/Reversi for further reference.

Grand Chess already has the pieces designed and made.
http://www.mindsports.net/DownLoad/Noware/
GrandChess.ht
I suppose you could order the set from them and cover up two of the rows to the board from 10 X 10 to 8 X 10. I like the design and names of the Marshall and Cardinal, which correspond to the Chancellor and Archbishop. You could just use the pieces from the set on an 8 X 10 board also. I wonder what Ed's design looks like?
Ordering information:
http://www.mindsports.net/DownLoad/
No
$49 for the set seems like a reasonable price for the quality of the pieces. The board is another $39. I think I still might make one myself and just order the chess set.

mindsports web page and follow the links to Grand Chess.
Sorry about that

answers

Wow, that looked like fun. Come to Atlanta and have the next one :)

Let's play a forced move version of Bird's Chess. This forcing of opening moves is simular in concept to how some Checker tournaments are held by requiring the opening moves to be forced upon the players to keep the game from becoming stale or over-studied. This version will be called "Modern Bird's Chess". Bird's Chess is a game made up in 1874 by Henry Bird. His game is actually a pretty good game that would be a fine substitute for this Gothic Chess that seemily has the power to distroy all opposition to it. Anyway, I propose a new version of Bird's Chess and am calling it Modern Bird's Chess. In this version of Bird's Chess each player's first four moves are determined before the start of the game. If you're familiar with Gothic Chess's set up, put the pieces in the same places except that the Queen is placed next to the King on E1, the Guard (Known as Chancellor in Gothic Chess) is placed on D1, the Equerry (Archbishop in Gothic chess) is on G1. This is slightly different from how Ed has Bird's Chess in his article sited earlier (He has the Guard and Equerry on each other's respective squares), but I went to the chessvariants site figuring Ed isn't the only authority on Bird's Chess. In fact, from this set up, you'll notice that all's Gothic Chess is is Bird's Chess with the Queen and Chancellor in switched positions! I shall call the pieces by their Gothic Chess names though Guard and Equerry are just as good as any other names. We've gotten used to the names from playing Gothic Chess and this is a Gothic Chess discussion board.
OK, with the pieces set up as shown on the chessvariants.com site, the players must make the following four moves and then may play as they'd like. C= Guard and A= Equerry.
White------- Black
1. C d1-c3..... C d8-c6
2. Q e1-d1..... Q e8-d8
3. C c3-d3..... C c6-d6
4. C d3-e1..... C d6-e8

After these moves have been made, the regular rules for Bird's Chess shall appply. (As far as I can tell they are identical to Gothic Chess' rules. Real innovation there, Ed.)

What do you think, Fencer? Could we get rid of Gothic Chess and replace it with Bird's Chess and the Modern Bird's Chess variation? I'm sure you could just put them together on one web page and let the players decide which version to play. The Modern Bird's version would play just like Gothic Chess after the fourth move and people that like the different starting position would be happy. Of course, you could just put Bird's Chess on and people could play it as is or could agree to make certain opening moves before having free choice, just as Checkers does.

<>EdTrice (2434) 14. October 2004, 20:06:15

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.<
==================
Ed, the Grand Chess sets have been made for years. Perhaps you are the one that's doing the patent infringement? And surely you don't claim to have a patent on a 10 X 8 chess board, do you?
================================
>I won two cases already regarding patent infringement.
Here is a third, settled out of court just this week.

exhibit b

exhibit c<
================================
As for the rest of the post, I think I will contact the people you've listed herein and find out just what kind of dealings they're having with you and direct them to this discussion board for their opinions.
===================================
&
gt;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?

=============================
Yes, I'll tell Fencer and anyone else that'll listen to me that I don't think your patent is worth the paper it's written on. That doesn't mean they'll listen to me, though. I'm just some knucklehead out in left field with his own opinion of how history is. What do I matter to the world when someone such as yourself is trying to make it big by exploiting the system and harrassing people with lawyers and lawsuits protecting a hundred year old idea that you somehow received a patent on? Hasbro? Yeah, now there's a good place to start. They should know if you have a leg to stand on, or if I'm an idiot and should leave well enough alone. I let you know how my research goes and also what some of those people you've talked about say concerning you and "Gothic Chess"

Bloody ridiculous Walter. If you're that opposed to the game step down as the mod.

I'm not opposed to the game. It's a great game. I'm opposed to someone controlling it that isn't the true inventor of it. He's a great promoter of it, but not the inventor. The game is over a hundred years old. As you can see from my post about how the set up and rules are identical to it, why should he profit in the manner he's trying to? Let alone impose his will upon others that disagree with him? If he's truly right about his ownership of the game, then my apologies will be coming and my understanding of fairness will need a re-adjustment.

Orgasnizing tournaments. Getting people to play a game. Getting the game sets made.
All of this is great, but the means doesn't justify the ends in my eyes. He could have done all of this without even getting the patent. So why have a patent? Why not do it just like FIDE or American Contract Bridge League? Have your groupd and organize you tournaments and play. Copyright the rules and welcome people to play your game.

I don`t think that Fencer needs a license to run "Gothic Chess" at BK,because it has his seat in Czech Republic.
GC is an American patent and that`s why it has no validity in the European states.

Fencer certainly could do as I've suggested with Bird's and Modern Bird's Chess. The first thing he'd have to do is have a different name for the game, if only to cut down on confusion as the where and who's in charge of it.
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. As for the licensing stuff, 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. Even if the courts completely side with Ed, how much could he win? Would he really want people to not make the game and incourage others to play it?
I think this discussion board should be expanded from just this one version of 10 X 8 Chess and the Marshall/Chancellor/Guard/Knight+Rook and Cardinal/Archbishop/Equerry/Knight+Bishop to include the other versions that have the same pieces and board or close enough to it. It'd also be nice if the site had the option to play the various versions of the games. The games I have in mind are Gothic Chess, Bird's Chess, Modern Bird's Chess, Grand Chess, and Capablanca Chess. I suppose the original, granddy version should be here as well, Carrera's Chess.

Caissus, it seems like someone a few months ago raised the same question you just posed. Couldn't Ed just get a patent in Europe? Or will they not grant a patent to a game that's a hundred old and almost an exact copy of it as they've done here in the United States?

Walter,he can get a patent in Europe of course! But he has to register it in every single country,in which it shall have validity.
Otherwise he has no legal capacity.

Caissus, the game rules are not patentable in Europe. However BrainKing (as well as other web page) have to comply to US laws or provide technical means which would make BrainKing unusabe by US people. For example, there is a precedent when one French web-page with nazist propaganda was taken down by court desicion, because it violated German constitution.

Are you sure? 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! :) Hmmm, well, federalism has pluses and minuses. 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. 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. 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.

It's hard to imagine that he'd be able to get a court to pull the plug on BrainKing for that reason. Plus Fencer and/or others might be able to get the patent overturned if it was to go to court.
Andreas, why do you say that the rules or game isn;t patentable in Europe? Different laws, or some other reason?

Andreas,but who will do something if a webpage like BK does not comply with the American laws?
The American authorities have no possibilities in Czech Republic and for the Czech authorities are the American laws not valid. (Would be great: American laws have validity all over the world :-) ).

Btw I think there is a difference between Czechia and USA und between Germany and France,because these countries are in the EG and many of their laws will enforced in both countries.

Walter, patent law in Europe differs from that in USA, see European Patent Convention:

"(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information. "

Walter ,you cannot compare USA with the European community.Although we have in Europa a economical and political community, every country has its own laws, which can mostly enforced in the other European countries.
But between America and Europe it is another thing and I am sure if there is only an American patent,there is no legal capacity to enforce something here in Europe.

I'd say section "c" would preclude him from winning patent approval as it expressly mentions games. Obviously that's not the case here in United States.

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.

There are treaties between our countries,but not regarding of patents.He must have a patent here.
That`s why the big concerns let license their technical inventions in e v e r y important country worldwide.

Like the US government is concerned enough about Gothic chess to make a special arrangement. . . . . ???? I doubt that even GI is that delluded.

It will honor the true creator of the game, plus it should end all the bickering about patents and what not. All sites could have it. There'd be no licensing fees, royalties to pay, or granting of permission to acquire. The game itself would be free to expand and become better known without the strangling hold of a central power. If I'm to believe some of what Ed has said about him wanting to improve on Chess, he should want this and he'd still get credit for promoting the game. Plus his organization has a leg up on FIDE and the USCF and he should be able to stay in control of tournaments and associations. Of course, if the Chess playing public abandons regular Chess in favor of Bird's Chess, I imagine those organizations will really give Ed a fight for their turf.
I haven't been to a Chess club in over twenty-five years. I remember setting up the board to play Ultima and having the people there give us some funny looks while we played our game. I wonder if I brought a 10 X 8 board and set up a game of Bird's Chess if I'd get any players?

As to the name of the game, it doesn't make sense to call it Gothic Chess. Can you imagine if Henry Bird heard his game called that?

Caissus, BrainKing.com collects membership fees using US servers, MoneyBookers and PayPal. This could be consedered as doing buisness in US or at least as an export to US. Both should comply to US laws.

Walter, I don't see why Fencer should change anything, as soon as license fees stay at very generous 1$/year. In contrary, he gets some advertisements from Gothic Chess Federation, see http://gothicchess.org/brainking_central.html by providing Gothic Chess here.

Come on! Stop this. Why do you want so much Gothic Chess leave this site? I agree to add Bird's and Modern Bird's Chess but this doesn't mean that Gothic Chess has to be removed.

Keep Gothic Chess and bring new variations too!


You said:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++
"I'm opposed to someone controlling it that isn't the true inventor of it. He's a great promoter of it, but not the inventor. The game is over a hundred years old."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++

Ed Trice is the inventor of Gothic Chess. If you disagree tell us who is it?

The game is not over a hundred years old. If you disagree tell us where you have seen the opposite or show as a game of G.C from the past.

No,Andreas I am sure you will see if you ask an lawyer.And if there would be a juristic basis,who should do something against it? The authorities in Prag in comission of a court of Phliadelphia? Perhaps because of a US-Patent for a game, which would not be allowed to patent in Europe? Ridiculous!

Gothic Chess is a much more playable game than either Bird's Chess;or any other 10x8 square chess board game. Gothic Chess is balanced to the ultimate;they are not. Anyway,what opponant in any game would sit back while you wasted time re-arranging pieces;I know I wouldn't. I would "go for your throat" while you tried this silly manouver. Are you guys Criminals who would want to steal another man's legal patent? If not,why are you advising others to ignore Mr. Trice's legal patent. That is why this is a foolish argument;and I think Mr. Trice showed high intelligence in getting out of it.

This discussion is really silly. Could we just forget all these petty, nonsensical going back and forth and getting angry. Seriously, what is there to get angry about? The game is here, we enjoy playing it, so what's the big deal.