OK, I get the "LM" and "AO" part, and I am used to seeing an "F" where there is a "C"...so will Scarlet please enlighten me as to what the "C" stands for?

And what of the addition of new pieces or the moves they make. I think the queen originally could only move one square in all direction, just like a King except, of course, it was not as important as it could be lost without losing the game.

The C stands for Cute! :D

Most people are unaware that chess was not always the "packaged game" that it is today. It has already undergone countless changes over the centuries! The earliest form of the game, called chaturanga (Hindu for the four branches of the Indian army) bore little resemblence to the 64 square board shown above on the left. Depending on whether or not you subscribe to the belief that the ashtapada was used to play chaturanga, the earliest form of chess may have involved rolling dice! (Note: The Indian ashtapada was a general purpose playing surface which was used for many different recreational board games that almost invariably used dice to determine the course of play.)

It was because that chaturanga was so interesting that a great many people were enjoying it. The Hindu players took to adopting variations of the game, including making a four-player version of the game, both with and without dice. The diceless four-player game, which involves only eight pieces per side, is still played in 21st century India.

As chaturanga made its way further east, local customs, local fauna, and even "bad translations" had influenced the game. For example, the four branches of the Indian army from chaturanga had names that translate roughly to elephants, horses, chariots, and foot soldiers. As the game made its way into Arabia, the Hindu word for elephant was translated to al-fil. The Spanish still call this piece the alfil, but the Italians sought a phonetically similar word, which was alfiere, meaning "standard-bearer." We know that the traditional design for this piece featured a split mark at the top to signify the tusk of an elephant, but the English players had mistaken it to resemble the miter of a Bishop. The French also misinterpretted the context of the split mark, and believed the "hat" to be one that a "court jester" would wear. The modern day French player would call the Bishop fou which literally means "fool", but means "jester" to the players of the game.

As the game evolved, and the "bad translations" and other factors molded the game, one thing remained common across all cultures.

A game of shatranji, ajedrez, xadrez, scac, ... chess, could get rather long.

It was in the Middle Ages, believed during the 13th century, that the rules of the game of chess started to resemble the present day 64-square board. There was still some tinkering going on, however. The Bishop was only permitted to move two squares diagonally, but it could leap over a piece blocking its path! This is far different than the Bishop of today! If you could believe it, the Queen was even weaker. Originally called the Counselor, our modern day Queen could only move one square diagonally at a time. This means the Queen was actually weaker than a pawn at one point in time!

It was shortly after 1500 that the Bishop was given full reign over the diagonals as it does today. The Queen was likewise given the full power of horizontal and vertical Rook motion as well as the newly strengthened diagonal capabilities of the Bishop. The Rook and the Knight, the two strongest pieces from the Medieval era, were the only pieces that were never augmented in power.

With the added power of the Bishop and Queen, combined with the fact that pawns could now opt to promote to the compelling Matriarch, games were not requiring as many moves as the antiquated version of chess. The European adoption of the new rules was so rapid, that it surely proves that players welcomed brevity and profundity over exaggerated exercises in recalcitrance. But this new power came at a price: now the King needed some defense!

An entire mini-odyssey regarding the modern day castling manuever began to unfold. At first, the King was permitted to move to any two (or in some cases, three) squares during the course of one turn, placing the Rook leisurely at his side wherever he landed. The rules gradually become more restrictive in this regard, but the Italian School was still holding out for "freeform castling." The "freeformers" eventually gave in to the modern version of the rule regarding only the horizontal displacement of the King during castling. It should be noted that this debate was contested for decades.

The French had one last hand in the shaping of the contemporary rules of 8x8 chess, that being the strange en passant pawn capture. Depending on whose story you read, the French viewed the bypassing of an infiltration achieved by a pawn as an "act of cowardice." Basically, if you moved your pawn twice on the first move to get passed a pawn that was pressuring the pawn you moved, the French reserved the right to remove the "cowardly" pawn as if it had directly impaled itself by moving forward only once. This special capture, known as en passant, (on the passing) can only be made on the turn following the "cowardly advance." This peculiar rule was finally universally accepted by the 1880's, but it had been used widely for over 200 years prior to this.

LMFAO @ LMCAO :)

;)

*blush*

test test

Bernice 2003/11/18, 06:21:09
im here to test as well....just wish i could play the fancy versions of chess :(
this is an edit
Well i posted, edited and deleted....they all appear to work :)

If anyone is interested in the relative merits of an enormous number of chess variants, check out:

www.chessvariants.com

(sorry, not exactly sure how to include a link in the text). Literally thousands and thousands of variants, divided nicely up into categories such as large board variants (gothic, janus, grand, and Mr. Trice's favorite, omega, among them), small board, etc, including "officially recognized variants" (gothic is among them! Yeehaw!) and variants that do not use what we could consider the standard board and pieces (i.e. many of the Asian games). The site also includes links to any official webpages of federations official and unoffical, and an occasional game engine against which you can try the variant out. Good for hours of mind-numbing rules permutations.

well now that is strange :( it said there were 2 new messages, but when i get here there is only matthewhall message.....strange :(

Yes I had to "hide" the person name "fraud". Whenever he posts, nobody will be able to see it except him, but the counter will increment.

:)

Very funny Matthew (when I met Matt in Philadelphia this summer with ChessCarpenter, I told them how much I despise Omega Chess.)

:)

...the ArchModerate function is stil a little buggy, occasionally producing some strange side effects.

But this is too be expected, since the ArchModerator can move like a Moderator or a Knight on any turn.

kinda like the message box boo boo's g ?

You guys know there is no Archmoderator function right? I just made that up.

*takes 2 steps backwards and holds hand over heart*
you mean You LIED?????

gunna enjoy playin you in the upcoming tourny.

had to go look..didnt you.

boy,I fully expect it will be a simple game.

hahahahaha...
and thanks for explaining that to me :)

I detect Litmus paper in the form of a Bernice post :)

the "gothic Glitch"seems to be at it again.

yup....looks like 7.1 to me.

no acidic remarks from me Ed ;0)
but I must admit your remark has me feeling as tho i have gathered something from "lichens"

Shall I send the invite? :)

Sure whenever you are ready. Choose your color as well.

From: GothicInventor
Date and time: 19. November 2003, 10:38:46
Subject: Policy Change
This is not for public posting. As I can read all boards and everything
you write or have ever written here on BK, I strongly suggest you
consider this carefully.
There will be a policy change on BrainKing.
Everyone has a chance to start over with a clean slate, as if they have
just come from the Vatican, meeting with the Pope, and they never posted
anything on BrainKing.
Over the next 96 hours, review everything that is posted. Notify those
that you want to still be here if they have any negative posts. They
will be responsible for removing their own.
If they do, and the boards are free from meaningless diatribe, they can
stay.
If there are any negative posts remaining, those people will be
contacted directly, and asked to either remove it (or others like it) or
else be removed from BrainKing.
It is that simple.
These boards were made for meaningful discussions, and they are
degenerating into public smearing and gang sessions.
Fencer does not want to undertake such a policy or its enforcement, it
is not his cup of tea. I, however, have already agreed to take it over,
and I will enforce it.
I am not looking to go on a witch hunt, but certain members of the KM
have deliberately taunted me beyond reason. They will be gone, no doubt
about it, if they do not reform in 96 hours.
Those certain few KM members are being asked to make a private apology
to me, and I think you know who they are. This will not be posted or
copied anywhere. If they cannot, I will delete their accounts and
everything associated with their existence here on BrainKing within 96
hours.
Things have gotten out of hand. I am setting it straight by force. Don't
like it? Get the hell out of here and don't come back. There is no
longer a need for paying memberships, I will refund everyone 200% that
leaves.
Fencer will have a full time job forever, so will Liquid. There is no
collective bargaining power from paying members, since there will be so
subscritpion fees.
Want to play on a free site? Just hold your tongue. Feel infringed upon?
There is the door.
It's that simple.

In honor of the KM fellowship's "adopt a pawn" program,the winner recieves a 1 year rook membership to BrainKing.com.If the winner is already a paid member,they may sponser a pawn,to become a member.Have fun,and pawns please remember to leave enough openings for the tournament. :)

I changed the Gothic Chess website around a bit. I finally got around to adding the Annotated Games section, by popular demand. The games there are posted in Word format, so you can download and print them, not just look at the html pages.

This is the link to that page. There are two cools games there currently, with more on the way.

the are statistically the main way which virii are spread.

interesting reading thus has taken me to the conclusion Gothic lacking imagination changed order of four pieces of classic game capablanca to take credit for an entirely new creation.

wording on the gothic chess fiction site thus: Welcome to the Gothic Chess Federation. Gothic Chess is played on an 80 square board that is 10 columns wide and 8 rows in height. There are two new pieces added to the board. These pieces are called the Chancellor and the Archbishop.

new of course being entirely questionable after the creation of the great Jose Raul Capablanca. archbishop and chancellor are previously much tested members of the chess army in variations as demonstrated on chessvariations.com

firstly capablanca chess and further here capablanca's chess. comparably, borrowed ideas, credit taken for moving order of few pieces hence gothic chess

it remains a mystery why wishiwashi management allows for farcical gothic instructions always ... ~*~

Between Capablanca chess and Gothic Chess.

But first, the concept of an 80 square board is not unique to Capablanca. Capa looked at it in 1924 or 1925, correcting the English Master Bird from 1874. Bird also was not the first, as he improved on Pietro Carrera's setup from 1617!

The patent and the setup for Gothic Chess is not claimed to have been the first try at an 80 square board. In fact, in the patent, we acknowledge the predecessors and had to prove our setup is very different.

There are 6 reasons why the Capablanca setup is bad.

1. The i-pawns were undefended. The starting position was therefore unstable, and kingside castling was usually suicidal since the castled king would reside in the file of the undefended pawn.


2. The bishops are "shifted" inward one file each, which changes the color on which they reside. They cannot reach the "long diagonal" like they can in regular chess, so many popular formations, such as the King's Indian or the Reti Opening had no counterparts in this variation.

3. On each side of the board, there are three diagonal pieces in a row, all aimed in the vicinity of the weak i-pawn. There is no symmetry, and there is too much attacking power focused on an unprotected sector of the board.


4. After Nh3 the knight covers the h-pawn, blocking the bishop in. The king's bishop could then only deploy in one direction, that being towards the opponent's Queenside after the f-pawn is pushed to free it. This cripples the range of the bishop over an important area of the board. This is bad.

5. Attempting to fix item #4 by playing the pawn to h3 instead of Nh3 does not solve the problem. White's King's Bishop would be free to head to the right after the h-pawn is pushed once, but where can the King's Knight land on its first move? Playing Nj3 then Nh2 after Bi3 costs a critical tempo, and Black's e-pawn can make one move to threaten the Bishop on i3, a potential loss of another tempo. Pushing the g-pawn then playing Ng2 looks more promising, but without pushing the e-pawn, Black has ...Ci6 to hit on the weakened i2 square. Of course ...Ci6 could be answered with Ch2, but this cuts off the Bishop's retreat path and invites either ...Ad6 or ...c6 and ...Bc7 to chase the Chancellor. This is bad.

6. Pushing the h-Pawn two squares in Capablanca Chess, seemingly freeing the King's Bishop, Knight, and Chancellor, allows a violent attack against h3 and i2 by the enemy Archbishop, Queen, and Bishop, by lining them up onthe c8-j1 diagonal. White can try to do the equivalent quick kingside castle in Capablanca Chess, but there is a positional detriment imposed. After 1. h4 d6 2. Nh3 e5 3. Bi3 (protecting the h-Pawn since the Black Bishop on d8 is now attacking it) 3...Nh6 4. Ch2 looks to allow 5. 0-0 without breaking a sweat. However, Black has Nj5, attacking the h-Pawn twice and the Bishop on i3, detracting from the merit of the position for White. After 4...Nj5 and 5...Nxi3, White's Pawn structure is ruined on the kingside since 6. jxi3 is needed to recapture the Knight that removed White's Bishop. White cannot play in this fashion without surrendering the iniative. This is very bad.

All of this, and more, is explained on the website at this link for those that are interested.

And everyone knows edge = danoschek, someone who was barred from this site.

I do not see why not being able to Fiachetto is all that bad;otherwise I totally agree with Gothic Inventor. Capablanca chess is certainly flawed;whereas Gothic Chess is a much more balanced and preferable setup. It is the best of the 8x10 square setups;I prefer it to regular chess,which is far too drawish. However,I also like Janus Chess;even though the setup is strange.

If you can't fianchetto with a Bishop, you cannot create one of the essential "fortresses" common to chess. Getting a Bishop onto a long diagonal that is also in the same file as a castled king adds a great deal of stability to the game.

When I first started playing regular chess, the concept of the fianchetto seemed foreign to me. Look at the players who molded it into a strategic weapon, the hypermoderns of the early 1900's. I think, by default, we are all "classic era" players, and only learn the finer points of the game after a longer period of exposure to it.

Just my opinion, of course, and each player's experience is undoubtedly different.

That is one of the reasons I find gothic weird. There is no "long diagonal", or if you want, for each side there are 3: for white it's a1-h8 to c1-j8. In chess, the point of the fianchetto is defensive as well as offensive, as in the sicilian opening. In gothic, you are on an offensive "long diagonal" as soon as you open the d pawn.

It takes some getting used to, but the "developing without moving" Bishop, by just pushing the d-pawn, is a weapon black can use to NOT be behind by one tempo as a result of moving second.

You notice on the stats page that black has actually won more games than white. I think in the long term scheme of things, some players have stumbled onto the notion of how to use the diagonals to their advantage as black.

In the July 2000 article on the value of the Gothic pieces;you rated the Archbishop as being less than 1 pawn lower than the Queen. Why then on Gothicchess.com do you only rate it as slightly more powerful than a Rook. Of all the Pieces only The Archbishop has the ability to create an unassisted checkmate;did you in your figuring take this into account. Also with the possibility of an Archbishop Vortex;I really believe a constant should have been introduced to take this into account. I still prefer your origanal accessment of its value. This is why I wondered about this. Could you offer a simple explaination to my question;as I believe it would help my game?

excuse me!! I meant to say Gothicchess.org;not Gothicchess.com. in my previous message.

I discovered something over the course of playing about 2000 games of Gothic Chess. The new pieces have a "dimension" to them that is not observed in the domain of regular 8x8 chess. That being, the value of the pieces vary as does the pawn population.

Consider this. Place a White Archbishop on a8. Place a White King on a1. Place a Black King on j8.

White to move will win, but it will take a very long time! With no pawns on the board, the Archbishop has "decayed" to being less important than a Rook. A Rook on the empty board mates much more quickly than the Archbishop.

So, should not the strength of the pieces become a function of the pawn count? I think so.

On a crowded board we observe Archbishops tearing down the house. So, in these instances, we rate it much higher.

I think the Archbishop derives a lot of its early power from its knight's move ability to jump over pieces ... this is the same as a knight in conventional chess. On a really crowded board the value of a knight increases, towards the end game the bishop becomes more pwerful as it ususally develops a longer range as there are less pieces to interfer. The Chancellor, I find, als o grows in power through the game, but i am not sure why. In the early game I actually prefer the Archbishop but will always swap for a Chancellor because I know as pieces disappear the Chancellor rises.

I myself am a bit more weary of the Chancelor's late-game abilities than I am of the Archbishop's opening abilities...perhaps because the openings I favor lead to somewhat longer, stodgier games that tend to lead to endgames where having the Chancelor's rank and file solidity is an advantage. Like Whisperz, I will almost always trade my Archbishop for a Chancelor, and have not seen much opening play (against an equal opponent, Ed and Rob!) where I feel the Archbishop solidified enough of a tactical advantage to counteract the Chancelor's heavy influence in endgames.

Speaking of Archbishop piece value, Ed and I played an interesting game recently where the Archbishop was traded early on for a rook and a bishop...it led to an interesting, unbalanced position. The side that had given up the Archbishop won, but then again, it was Ed v. me.;-)

The poor Chancellor. As pawns come off the board, it's rook aura gains power, but its knight component loses power.

Since the Knight is the weakest of the conventional pieces once migrated to the 10x8 board, and the Rook is the piece that losest the least amount of power on the 10x8 board, it is hard to tell the net effect of the Chancellor's power change.

One thing that i s pretty cool...Archbishops dominate in the opening, Chancellors are wicked in the middlegame, and Queens tear up the endgame.

The question is....where do you excel, and how bad would you risk beating your opponent in the given stage of the game where the pieces will help you most?

Matt,

I had to go back and revisit that game. I forgot about some of the peculiarities in that one!

The first was here like you mentioned. Things got interesting and it seemed like minor + R for the Arch was sufficient as it made white's positon a little more uncomfortable than mine.

The next interesting part is here where I let the Chancellor get caught in exchange for your Archbishop, which was more powerful than my piece in that position.

These were part strategical decisions, and I will have to dig up my notes to figure out exactly what I was thinking at the time!

Dang...leave it to the English teacher to misspell 'Chancellor' at every opportunity!

At least you did not misspell misspell :) That would be an efficacious typo.

I see we have 34 active players who have completed at least 25 games of Gothic Chess on here. That is pretty close to 52, the number of cards in a deck.

So, the thought occurred to me, maybe we could make a deck of cards with everyone's pictures on them. Players 1-4 woud be the aces, 5-8 would be the Kings, etc.

Anyone interested?

So long as grillyx gets his act into gear and gets a few more points so that he can be a queen and I could be a dirty rotten knave LOL W:)

Aces
GothicInventor
ChessCarpenter
strydor
juangrande

Kings
Dredger
HerculesBeast
Fencer
Savage

Queens
nstre
matthewhall
Whisperz
grillyx

Jacks
anticonformista
JAGR
tonyh
GKChesterton

Start thinking abour your mugshots, gentlemen :)