Chessmaster 1000 is the only person here on BrainKing that has sent me games he played against Gothic Vortex where he absolutely slaughtered the program.

Vortex would think it was ahead by 200-300 points, when his slow, gradual pressure would overpower it from too far away. Just for curiosity, I compiled a version that would search until I interrupted it. Even searching for 3 days, Vortex thought it was winning, yet as I played Chessmaster 1000's moves, his moves would win.

I say this because very few people on this site can win in this fashion. Usually a win against Vortex can be cured by a longer time setting or something that was missing in the knowledge.

This was not the case.

Even in my own wins against Vortex, the scores are not so far off. CM1000 would let his pawns get captured only to occupy a huge hole with his pieces and attack like crazy some 15 moves (30 plies) later.

I know the names of every person on here who purchased a Gothic Vortex license, and he is not one of them.

we have proof that CM1000 used a program AFTER he said he wouldn't. There is no validity in anything he says to try and cover up the fact and I am certain people see this.
I even have copies of dialogue he used in a game against someone else to try and make it look like he was moving himself but in fact was using a program. It was very funny.

I still don't get the point. Why use them? I don't want to play a machine, I want to play a person. If I'm going to play against a machine, it should be clearly known to me before the game starts and I willingly consent to it. Sneaking one in is cheating or something else. It's definitely not sporting or fair.
Dark Chess is probably the least machine played game, plus it's hard to get outside help from other people because of the darkness.
Seeing how a person can take atleast a day for each move, I really don't see much need for a machine to make the moves. Just being lazy, eh? I ain't buying it for Reversi, Chessmaster1000. You don't need the machine to make your moves for you. When it's your turn, make a move. If it's a bad one, then too bad. If it's a good one, you earned it. Rationalizing away the reasons for your using the machine doesn't negate the fact that you're using a machine to play your games.

I imagine in ten or less years from now, computers will probably play these games so good that they'll stop being much use in having tournaments for them. Then the rest of us regular folks can just play them for fun like they're supposed to be.

ok, well tell you what! I am pretty bad at reversi, why don't we play a game. I'm playing line4 and tablut for dummies and that's about my level!

<>ok, CM1000, so you mean you once (HAD BEEN using, I know English is not your first >language, I was interpreting it the only natural way a native English speaker like myself >would, no hard feelings) a program to play reversi and now you are not?

Yes that is what i mean. Actually as i am a very pedantic person:) i take every word as a fact, just why i reacted this way. Sorry if any of my statements made you feel somewhat strange:-)

>Like I said, I do not have a problem with that as you are not the first nor will be the last to >"Zentaur" on this site. What about our gothic chess games, was I playing you or something >else? I am curious. I will believe your answer.

No, i have never used Gothic Vortex (since this is the only available Gothic Chess program there is(perhaps not?)) against anyone.

Actually it isn't even working on my computer but even if it worked i would not use it of course. I say of course because it's obvious that this would be not fair. You will say then why i used my program for helping me at Reversi 8x8?

Well, i find Reversi 8x8 a game that humans can't play it well and i mean without making at least one bad move every 5 moves (That is because i (and generally we) can't use my(our) logic to play Reversi at a high level as i(we) can't find any patterns that show when a position is good or not and calculating many plies ahead is impossible, since the turning checkers don't allow our brain to do that(i know that having the corners and especially the 4 edges it's good but that it is not enough for playing good)), and since i thought that all people at this site use a computer for playing this "crazy"(for the above reasons) game, i used it too.

"I know it's a bit difficult to read the above because of the many parenthesis, but to have a general view you should ignore all the parenthesis and the statements between them."

ok, CM1000, so you mean you once (HAD BEEN using, I know English is not your first language, I was interpreting it the only natural way a native English speaker like myself would, no hard feelings) a program to play reversi and now you are not? Like I said, I do not have a problem with that as you are not the first nor will be the last to "Zentaur" on this site. What about our gothic chess games, was I playing you or something else? I am curious. I will believe your answer.

And you are right about cheating with endgames and opening books by comparison to OTB games.

Redsales speaks about Chess variants and not Chess.

<>but using the program to defeat an opponent in the middle of a game is cheating.

I agree on what are you saying but the above is wrong. It is cheating not only if you use a program for playing the middlegame, but also for the opening and endgame.

It is cheating if you look the opening book of Fritz for example to play your opening moves, and it is also cheating if you will use endgame tablebases to play an endgame perfectly.

I hate when i say that A+1=B and people translate/understand it as A+1<>B.
I said that i USED a program to play REVERSI 8x8 and Redsales believes that: "CM1000 admits he USES a program". USED is different from USES. And also a program on REVERSI, is different to a program EVERYWHERE.

Anyway now i've said i was using a program at
Reversi 8x8(although not deliberately), i understand it's too difficult for people to believe anything i'm saying about anything. It's their choice and anyway it doesn't matter.....

Are you sure? White moves N D4-F5, then I say Black can move K E4-D5. White's next move must be a checkmate. What is the move? Least ways, I haven't figured it out yet. Could you let me know?

Ah, you did let me know. C C2-C3. Yep, that'll do it. Thanks

Stevie, you got it. I think anyone who is really interested in playing here has to do it for the love of the game, ultimately. It sounds hokey but that's all we have in the end.

I agree with this :o)
Chessmaster1000 mentioned my game with him of reversi (I know offtopic for the board but not for the conversation) He done exactly what you just said, he only told me because I told him I could tell he was using a programme. he then owned up that he realised he couldnt win against me, so started using his programme so as to win the game. But I could tell it was used before he said it was. But it backs up your theory Cerebo that its an ego thing and can not lose.
My bkr goes up and down in all games, this shows its real and no programmes used, and they are my own and genuine bkr :o)

I have tried to understand why some players would use a computer to make their moves. I can think of at least three cases, two of which are confirmed, in which players were using computer programs to beat me. I think that some of these players try to win by themselves at first. After realizing that other players are better their ego suffers badly and psychologically they give up on winning on their own. They start using a program and they get some satisfaction in seeing other players struggle while all they do is feed moves into a program. Their ego breaks down, so they lose perspective of what fair play is. I know my ratings are quite low, but they are my ratings, not Chessmaster 9000, or Gothic vortex, or some other program's ratings. Computer programs have a place. You can use them to practice at home, or to analyze positions after a game is completed, but using the program to defeat an opponent in the middle of a game is cheating.

that you could always use ONE line. I suggest to improve the opening book. ~*~ :D

Programs are easy to beat. See?

Hosing the computer

on BK, everything is allowed simply bc there is no way to police our moves. CM1000 admits he uses a prog, so I have no problem with him. I don't see where he derives his satisfaction, but it's ultimately his choice. Recently I read a tragic story about a top -100 GM in chess that was receiving moves from a computer through a device that was ostensibly a hearing aid. The only reason he was caught is that there was audible feedback on the device. I suppose next that the world championship contenders will have to be subjected to a body cavity search and "bug" screening! Anyway, after awhile you can tell who plays with a prog and who doesn't, so that'll help you decide who to play. I have found that most programs in the chess variants are easy to beat, so that's a good place to play.

<>is that why you like to beat people with programs such as wzebra in Othello?

What do you mean exactly? I'm clever enough so that i would not feel any satisfaction by beating someone at othello 8x8 (reversi 8x8), with the help of a computer. I'm also clever enough that i don't care if i will win 100% of my games at reversi 8x8.
Since the game of reversi 8x8 is too tricky and compicated for me to play, i used a program (written by me) to play and thinking that all other opponents are doing the same. After a game i said to Steve(or someone else?) that i used a program to play. Do you think a "cheater" admits this so easy? And i've asked to all the people played with me and lost, to ask Fencer to delete all their loses with me.

>They are using legal positions but yet it is also cheating on your part

What do you mean???

I do it without proggies or reading about others.. I play it and use the skills I learn through my errors in past games..

My opinion to anyone who uses programs or other forms to help their game is cheating!

At least when I lose my games of gothic.. I know what I shouldn't do in the next game..

morally it is cheating..but evidently allowed.

To LJ:Be careful with the word "cheating"!Where have you read what is forbidden and what allowed here in BK?

But sure it is a difference if we look at a position of a played game or at a composed problem.Btw at (fairy) chessproblems are also sometimes illegal positions allowed.The taste is the one side and the rules and the criterions of a good chessproblem are the other side.
These are defined by the federations for chessproblems - for instance "Die Schwalbe"- which have defined the standards for good and for bad problems.

is that why you like to beat people with programs such as wzebra in Othello?
They are using legal positions but yet it is also cheating on your part

<>"And even better is when a mate in X problem, has equal material on both sides or the >side that is about to mate is inferior in the material"

>No,this is not imortant - most chessproblems have unequal material! Important is the >economic image of a special theme with a surprising "key move" and checkmates in >different variants.

Neither this is important. Nothing is more important from something else. It is only a matter of taste. I'm attracted more by positions with mate in X, in which the material is equal or the side that is about to mate is behind in material. You like more positions which seem "good to the eyes" and they are pretty, other persons may like something else ...etc.

>We speak here about a chessproblem,which is composed and not about a position of a >played game.

It doesn't really matter. I don't see any difference. The only thing we should speak is about legal positions.

"And even better is when a mate in X problem, has equal material on both sides or the side that is about to mate is inferior in the material"

No,this is not imortant - most chessproblems have unequal material! Important is the economic image of a special theme with a surprising "key move" and checkmates in different variants.
We speak here about a chessproblem,which is composed and not about a position of a played game.

<>A miniature (with max 7 pieces):1.Nf5! >f1Q/KxN/Kf4/Kd3/Kd5 2.Cd4/Cd4/Cd4/Ce3/Cc3#
>Unfortunately too many Cd4-Checkmates.
>More nice if every defence of Black has another >checkmate.

And even better is when a mate in X problem, has equal material on both sides or the side that is about to mate is inferior in the material.

A miniature (with max 7 pieces):1.Nf5! f1Q/KxN/Kf4/Kd3/Kd5 2.Cd4/Cd4/Cd4/Ce3/Cc3#
Unfortunately too many Cd4-Checkmates.
More nice if every defence of Black has another checkmate.

Walter, the second problem (by Mw. L. Ferris) is right. White mates in all variants. This problem is really very nice!

As for the 2 games between me against Taikoki and Gothic Vortex 1.0, i just copied the first from Brainking history but i can't open the other.
Since Gothic Vortex isn't working i can't open the games i've saved to be able to convert them to a text file format. And when i open the *.gak files with notepad, i see only crapy things:)

Anyway here is the game with Taikoki:

Me Vs Taikoki (Brainking game):

1. f4 c6
2. g3 g6
3. Bg2 d5
4. d4 b6
5. e3 Ba6+
6. Kf2 Nh6
7. Af3 Bf6
8. Nj3 e6
9. i3 Be7
10. g4 f5
11. g5 Ng4+
12. Kg1 h6
13. h3 Nxi3
14. jxi3 hxg5
15. fxg5 Bxg5
16. h4 Bh6
17. Bi4 Ah7
18. Cg2 Cg7
19. Ae5 Af6
20. Axg6+ Kg8
21. Af7+ Kf8
22. Cxg7 Kxg7
23. Axe6+ Kh7
24. Ni5+ Bxi5
25. Qi6+! jxi6
26. Axf5+ Kh8?
27. Rxj8++ 1-0

And a question: At move 26 i entered a "?" for black, since with this move black loses immediately in the next move. But black is lost anyway. So an annotator has to enter a "?" or nothing, or even a "?!".

yep, but most people would probably play 2. Qxe8+ then not be able to deliver the checkmate :)

This is easy:-)

1.Bc5+ Kg8
2.Aj5+ i6
3.Bxi6+ jxi6
4.Axi6+ Ah7
5.Qxe8++

George,

Can you email me these games? I will print the diagrams for everyone.

White to play and MATE IN 16

Perhaps this is wrong but i don't have time to check it now. It comes from a game between me and Gothic Vortex 1.0 from January. I'm white.

Vortex, as always with these kind of attacks, thinks that it's clearly winning, it has even a promoted Queen more and my Chancellor has been sacrificed, but my attack is(?) unstoppable. I had analysed this position before 5 months and with best play i found it as a Mate in 16 for white.


2r2c3k/p3q1pr2/ba3p1pp1/4pPP1bA/1nP1P2N2/2N2B2R1/2P4RPP/q1BQ5K w - - 0 1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White to play and win!

This comes from a game of me against Taikoki. I found the move after some minutes and i had played it after spending 1-2 hours of analysis to be sure it's right. This move is not the only winning one, but it's the most spectacular and the most quick path to the win.

After black's move 24...Bxi5, i played the most spectacular move in the board but rather logical if you see carefully the position, and had an easy win. I don't know if it is a mate in X (X less than 20) since now Gothic Vortex doesn't work but it is a sure win for white.


rn1q5r/p6k2/bpp1Aa4/3p1p2b1/3P3PB1/4P3P1/PPP7/RNBQ2K2R w - - 0 1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chess problem: White to play and mate in 3!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is one of the most amazing Chess problems i have ever seen.

2K4N/3PP1k1/5N2/6n1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

These "new" pieces, Chancellor and Archbishop are known since about 14th century. You can read the history about these pieces in

"The Piececlopedia: The Rook-Knight Compound" and

"The Piececlopedia: Bishop-Knight Compound"

IS the second problem right? I think the King can get out of checkmate by moving to D5 after seeing the proposed solution.

Neat, harder than it looks. (Sam Lloyd's) I thought I'd solve it with a quick glance and a couple minutes of thought, but to no avail. Thanks Caissus. I'll check back on them eventually. Just how old is the Chancellor? 1880's? The history is a trip. Lots o' links from the site.

Caissus, I generated every mate possible with 5-piece in Gothic Chess. That is, I have the "5-piece tablebases" completed for Gothic Chess.

My solutions are not from Vortex, these are actually forced mates.

I started by identifying all checkmated positions. Then, I find all of the moves that lead to a mate in 1, a mate in 2, a mate in 3, etc.

This program ran for several months and solved all such mates.

The endgame databases will be part of the next version of Vortex so you can see for yourself.

Great Andreas! Will study these nice chancellor problems. And,has anybody something about AB or a problem with both pieces?:-)

There are 3 problems with a Chancellor from 19th century on chessvariants.com:

Mate in Two by Samuel Loyd

Mate in Two by Mw. L. Ferris

Mate in Two by John Keeble

that suspend the 50 moves rule - but only the machine cAn
track it down to one line quickly ... ;) - some of that nasty stuff,
rook vs bishop, with one or two pawns possibly starting the count again ... ~*~

No,I don´t know this.But I am sceptically,because who can prove so many moves?

Chessfriend Russ Jones once published some superlong endings from
a problem server, partly mates in over 250 moves too - do you know the URL ?
Could be also helpful for our software friend to get known enhancements implemented. ~*~

(in book four are mainly annotations and specials) and still the reference for
a human approach to solving problems. his graphical solutions are just like kewl
and it's besides Kmoch's book about pawn structures obligatory for serious players ... ~*~

I don`t think that your both studies are correct.There are too many variations between the first and the last move.And if you perhaps know the four books of Andre Cheron - 1000 pages and one of the books is about queen-endings only- you can see that queen/onepawn against queenending mostly can be won if the pawn is near the promotionfield next to his own king.This position with the pawn at his startfield,the kings in two different corners should be draw.
Alike the second position:the material approximately is equal and either you can win at once by a tactical moment or - I think - you cannot force the win with this single piece.
Moreover I see in your solutions only one variation.I guess these moves are the suggestions of the "Gothic Vortex",but we know sometimes the programs have problems with some endings.Therefor I don`t trust them.
My personal opinion without complete analyzing,what would need too much time.

L = Läufer D= Dame S= Springer and T = (I forgott) Turm (rook)

The first page is only Checkmate in 2 Moves =# 2
The second is "helpmate" and the third is "selfmate"

"S"? Der Springer? :)
"D", OK maybe Grand Dame
"L" I'll just have to memorize.
I might check it out sometime soon. I won't be able to follow the notes, but atleast I can work on the problems and then look for the solutions after words. Perhaps you can tell those guys about Gothic Chess and they might know of some problems already made.
Are they mates in two, or of variable length? Are they all mate problems, or are some of the other types mixed in?

But I can give you the abbreviations about the notation (for the solutions) K = king, D=Queen, L= bishop S= Knight

No, sorry Walter. "Die Schwalbe" is a German federation only for chessproblems and its magazine is only in German.

Caissus, is there a link that's in English?

Nah, he means something that's usually over in a few moves that a person could solve as a problem. The good ones usually start with a move that is surprising or atleast not so obvious as say grabbing an unguarded piece. I remember checking them out years ago. The helpmates and selfmates I never got into much, but the regular mates in three or four were always ones to play with and even share with friends that knew how to play Chess. Gothic Chess should have many possibilities for composed problems. The newspaper here no longer has the mate problems and instead uses positions from actual games and will pose a question about what move to make at some critical juncture in the game. That's not the same thing as a Chess problem.

There's one I remember that involves a King and Rook against three Pawns and a King. I'll have to see if I can remember it and then I'll post it or ask how to post it as I don't know how to make these Chess board like you guys do. I suppose I could just list the pieces and squares that they're on and who's turn it is and any interested person could set up the problem on their own board.

Most problems look as if the were actually played. They generally have a middle game look to them, though the one I just mentioned is an endgame kind of problem.