One thing that i didn't understand: How Walter removed you (Thad) from being a moderator?
When you've been a moderator you could do the same?
I ask because i think it's funny if a moderator has the ability to remove another moderator....

I will give you my thoughts at night........[European night:-)]

It happened to me before 4-5 days, but after 20 minutes i have entered without problems. I just hope this is the case for Ed, altough i'm afraid that............

I agree on better but easier??? What difficulties do you find playing Bird Chess?

Altough Schachmdmt you have me on your enemies list (for a very silly reason i can say), you spoke well. I joined this site for playing Chess and Backgammon but in the meanwhile i discovered Gothic Chess. And now i'm addicted to it.

Since i'm playing Chess many years like all of you, i guess, my analysis for the game has been huge and the surprises i have from the Chess game are getting smaller and smaller. And since G.C is something totally new, the areas we have to discover are endless, so this game is more fascinating than Chess right now.

I would like to thank Ed and Fencer for the same reasons, too. And while i don't know how many players would care for having Gothic Chess here,i do care and in fact it's a reason i'm being here.....So i would like Gothic Chess to continue be an available game here at Brainking.

<>Because of being sued, I'm banning Ed.

You have no right to ban him for this reason. Think about it.....


>I will become a quiet moderator.

I agree.

>No more posts from me.

No, you are a clever person and you should say what you have to say.

>No more ideas from me.

Come on.You really don't have to do that.

>No more throwing more wood on the fire.

As you are a moderator you should avoid this.


My logical wishes:

Walter: Unban Ed.
Walter: Apologize to Ed for your anti-patent statements and your over-reacting behaviour.
Ed: Take back the sue thing.

All of you have to show some good willing, to achieve peace and your heart will feel better. With some good willing everything can happen. Remember you are not lions. You are humans! And when you have different opinions you have to make some logical conversations and not letting your emotions to drive your decisions.
I wonder when our brain will completely escape from our animal past.....

Well my opinion is simple. When a moderator of a board continuously puts firewoods to the fire with his anti-patent opinions is not suitable for a moderator. He can of course say what he think but disagreeing for a USA law about patents, is in my eyes not right. I don't want to be suspicious but his behaviour is not honest for me. Just my opinion of course........

Here are 5 games i played with the Gothic Vortex 1.03 and a good book. I just played only with white pieces the 5 games, but i will play another set of 5 games with black. Both 5 games were at 30 second per move for G.V, while i had 25 minutes for 40 moves repeating (I added +5 minutes more that the "fair 20 minute/40moves = 30sec/move, because i've noticed that G.V at our games is using more than 30 seconds per move).
I won 4 games with an amazing way while in the 4th game when book worked i lost.

Game 1:
In this game G.V had a strange behaviour. See my notes. I won with a nice attack.

Game 2:
This game has an amazing mate combination i found at move 19, after a nice attacking game. After analysing it with G.V after the match, i indeed found it was the best move and according with G.V it was an unbelievable mate in 8! My attack was once again brilliant. The easiest game i played against G.V.

Game 3:
Perhaps the most amazing game i have played against G.V. In no other game i've ever made a positional Queen sacrifice!!! And the last mating combination is something that i really can't find words to describe it.
Simply brilliant.

Game 4:
I tried to develop in my normal way for an attack but the book destroyed my plans. G.V seemed to knew what i was going to do and played according it's book up to 7 when it played the damn Nd4!. I tried to adapt and play different but my position was not the best possible, i played some dubious moves so i lost with a nice tactic move by G.V.

Game 5:
This time i sacrificed "only" a Rook, for gaining time and trapping ArchiBishop to a1, while this time my hanging Knight wasn't captured, right this time, by G.V's h-Pawn. And alhough my King seemed very open to an attack it was me, with a nice attack that won.
-------------------------------------------

-----------------
Here are the games:

Game1:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 Ni8h6
2. Ni1j3 Nb8c6
3. c2c3 g7g6
4. d2d4 d7d5
5. h2h3 Nh6f5
6. Ag1h2 h7h5!? (I think this is a good move by G.V and i didn't like it, since it caused me many problems in my attempt for an attack.)
7. g2g3 Bh8f6
8. Bh1f3 Ag8i6
9. Nj3i5 O-O
10. Ce1g2 Bf6g7
11. j2j4 j7j6
12. e2e3?! (Not the best i believe, but i thought the time was perfect to start my attack.)

12...Nf5h6 (Very bizzare?!?! G.V rejects my Knight offer! What it should be noted here is that after the game, when i capture the Knight for G.V, then it has a +300 score in favour of black. So if it thinks it is so good move move for black, why doesn't play it?)

13. Kf1f2 Bg7f6
14. h3h4 Ai6j5
15. Cg2i3?! (Removing the defender but not a good idea i think.)
15...Aj5xi3
16. Ah2xi3 Bc8xi2
17. Rj1j2 Bi2f5
18. Qd1i1 Qd8d6
19. Nb1d2 Nh6i4
20. Rj2j3 Qd6d7
21. Nd2f1 Bf5i2
22. Nf1h2 Bi2xj3 (G.V can't refuse my new gift.)

23. Nh2xj3 Ra8d8? (The game is not here...And why not capturing my Knight??? I don't have a Rook behind after all.)

24. Ai3j5 b7b5?! (Moving some pieces to the Kingside is necessary as my attack is getting stronger after each move. But again why G.V thinks that my Knight is poisoned? I thought that there is something wrong with G.V and closed G.V at this time but when i re-opened it, it was playing the same move, and even now it does, so everything were OK. But the crazy thing is that when i'm forcing the capture of the Knight G.V thinks it is +600 points ahead. So why it doesn't capture the damn Knight?)

25. Bc1d2 b5b4
26. Bf3g2 Qd7f5
27. Bg2xi4 Qf5c2
28. Kf2e2 h5xi4
29. Qi1xi4 Ce8g7 (Now G.V is in troubles.)
30. Ra1i1 b4xc3
31. b2xc3 Cg7h5
32. Ri1i3 Qc2xa2
33. g3g4 Ch5g7 (At this moment i had only ~1:30 for the rest 7 moves, but for the first time i saw that i was winning.)

34. Ni5xg6 Qa2a6+

35. Ke2e1 (Clever move to gain time as i was sure it would check me again.)

35...Qa6a1+
36. Ke1e2 Qa1a6+
37. Ke2f3 (I won 2 moves as i played instantly. Now i had 1:10 for the next 3 moves.)

37...f7xg6
38. Aj5xi7 Ki8j7
39. Ai7xj6 Qa6f1+
40. Qi4xf1 Kj7xj6
41. Ri3i5 Cg7i7 (The rest of the game is easy of course....)
42. Qf1i4 Rh8i8
43. Bd2e1 Bf6g7
44. h4h5 Ci7xi5
45. j4xi5+ Kj6i7
46. h5h6+ Ki7h7
47. g4g5 Bg7f8
48. Qi4j5+ Kh7h8
49. i5i6 Bf8xh6
50. g5xh6 Kh8g8
51. Qj5j7 Kg8f8 1-0
--------------------------------------------

--------------------
Game 2:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 Ni8h6
2. g2g3 g7g6
3. d2d4 d7d5
4. h2h3 Nh6f5
5. Ag1h2 Bh8f6
6. c2c3 Ag8h6
7. Ni1j3 Ah6j5?! (What is this move for?)
8. Bh1f3 O-O
9. i2i4! Aj5h6
10. Kf1g2! Nb8c6
11. e2e3 j7j6 (Perhaps i6 is better.)
12. Ce1i1 e7e6
13. i4i5 j6xi5
14. Nj3xi5 (I don't think black has any defence now.)
14...Rh8f8
15. Ci1j3 Ah6g7? (Perhaps the losing move or the game was already over?)
16. Rj1i1 Bf6xj2
17. Ni5xh7! (The first firework!)
17...Ki8xh7
18. Bf3i6+ Ag7xi6
19. Qd1xi6+ Kh7g7
20. Qi6xg6+!! (I intended to play Qxi7 but the King would escape via f6, so i changed to Ag4 or this. But after Ag4 black would have many otpions (good moves) to turn the board. So i started calculating the 2 replies for black. Since fxg6 is an obvious mate for me i had to think only for Kxg6 and after some minutes i saw that black's King was history, since my ArchBishop,Chancellor and Rook would prevail. After analysing with G.V, i saw that i've missed 2 replies by G.V, but i think if any of these positions really happened i would find them. I can't compete with a computer at tactics so it's normal not to calculate correctly a mate until the end.)

20...Kg7xg6
21. Ah2i4+ Kg6h7
22. Cj3i5+ Kh7h8

23. Ci5j7+ Kh8h7 (Here when i started the Queen sacrifice(move 20), i didn't calculate the move 23...Ki8 for G.V, so if this would be a good defence for it i would lose, but as it turned out, this move also loses as there is the amazing 24.Ah6+! So i wasn't lucky after all.)

24. Ai4j6+ Kh7g6
25. Aj6h5+! Kg6xh5
26. Cj7xi7+ Kh5h6
27. Ri1i6 1-0
--------------------------------------------

---------------------
Game 3:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 Ni8h6
2. Ni1h3 Nb8c6
3. g2g3 g7g6
4. Nb1c3 d7d6 (Until now all book moves.)
5. d2d3 Bh8xc3
6. b2xc3 Ag8f6
7. Nh3g5 O-O
8. Bc1d2 Af6g4
9. h2h3 Ag4i5
10. Ag1h2 f7f6
11. Ng5f3 d6d5
12. j2j4 Ai5j6
13. Ce1g2 Aj6h5
14. g3g4 Ah5g7
15. d3d4 Bc8e6
16. i2i4 Nc6a5
17. j4j5 j7j6
18. Cg2i1 Na5c4

19. Bd2e1?? (No this is not a joke or an oversight of me, but i saw that the 3+ moves tempo i would gain is worth the risk. Of course and it's a bad move but at the end i won, so i could also claim the opposite.)

19...Nc4e3+
20. Kf1g1 Ne3xd1
21. Ah2g3 Nd1e3
22. h3h4 Ne3xc2 (As G.V spends time capturing my out-of-play pieces, i attack.)

23. i4i5 j6xi5
24. h4xi5 Nh6xg4
25. j5j6 Rh8g8
26. Nf3h4 Nc2xa1
27. Nh4j5 i7i6

28. Bh1f3 i6xj5 (G.V is the most happy computer in the world in this position. It has a +1700 score in favour of it!! How did it managed to lose? I wonder......)

29. Rj1xj5 Na1c2
30. Be1d2 Be6f5
31. Ag3h4 Ki8j7
32. i5i6+! (What is going on now? I'm winning or not? I have to analyse this position. When i played the game i was almost sure that i would be able to draw the game.)

32...h7xi6
33. Bf3xg4 Bf5xg4
34. Ci1i5+ Ag7xi5 (Now i have only 3 pieces in comparison with 6 of black side, and no Queen or Chancellor, but i've saw that black King has nowhere to go. One of the best mating net i have ever seen.)

35. Ah4xi5+ Kj7i8
36. j6j7+ Ki8i7
37. j7j8=A+ Rg8xj8
38. Ai5xg6+ Ki7h6
39. f4f5+ Nc2e3
40. Bd2xe3+ Kh6g7
41. Ag6i5+ Kg7g8
42. Rj5xj8+ Kg8f7
43. Ai5h6 1-0
--------------------------------------------

----------------------
Game 4:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 Nb8c6
2. Nb1c3 Ni8h6
3. g2g3 d7d6
4. Ni1h3 g7g6
5. e2e3 e7e5! (Damn! All my plans are gone with this move. It's a book move.)
6. Bh1f3?! e5xf4
7. e3xf4 Nc6d4! (Again a good book move. Now i have to change my strategy and abandon my attacking plans.)
8. Ce1xe8+ Qd8xe8
9. d2d3 Nd4xf3
10. Qd1xf3 c7c5
11. Bc1d2 Bh8d4
12. Ra1e1 Qe8d8
13. Bd2e3 Bd4xe3
14. Ag1xe3 Nh6g4
15. Ae3g1 Ag8h6
16. Nh3g5 O-O
17. h2h3 Qd8b6! (Nice and unexpected.)
18. Nc3d1 Ng4e5
19. Qf3g2 Ne5c6
20. c2c3 Ah6g8
21. Ag1e3 f7f6
22. Ng5e4 Qb6d8
23. b2b3 f6f5
24. Ne4f2 Qd8a5
25. Nf2h1 Bc8e6
26. Nh1i3 Ra8e8
27. Ae3c1 Be6d5
28. Qg2f2 Re8xe1+
29. Qf2xe1 Ag8h6! (Now i'm in trouble.)
30. Nd1e3 Rh8e8
31. Qe1d1 Nc6e7
32. c3c4 Bd5c6
33. Kf1g1 Ah6g7
34. Kg1h2 Ag7i6
35. g3g4 d6d5
36. Rj1e1 f5xg4
37. Ne3xg4 d5xc4
38. d3xc4 Ai6h4
39. Re1f1 Ne7f5! (Things are getting worse.)
40. Ni3h1 Re8d8
41. Qd1c2 Bc6xh1
42. Rf1xh1 Ah4g3+
43. Kh2g2 Qa5e1! (Nice move. The tactical monster prevailed.)
0-1
------------------------------------------

------------------------
Game 5:
Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 d7d5
2. Ni1h3 Ni8h6
3. d2d4 g7g6
4. c2c3 Ag8f6
5. g2g3 Bh8g7
6. Bh1f3 O-O
7. Nh3g5 Af6g8
8. Ce1g2 Nb8c6
9. j2j4 Ce8f8
10. h2h4 (As it is my style when i play against G.V, i never castle and play Pawn moves...)

10...f7f6
11. Ng5h3 Bc8g4
12. e2e3 Qd8d7
13. Nh3i5 Bg4xf3
14. Qd1xf3 j7j6
15. Cg2i3 Ag8e6
16. Rj1j2 Ae6f5
17. Qf3e2 Af5d6
18. Nb1d2 Nc6a5!? (I like this, too tricky.)
19. Kf1g2 (Forced as the ArchBishop could kill my Queen.)

19...Ad6b5
20. Qe2d1 Ab5a4
21. Qd1e2 Aa4b5
22. Qe2f3 Ab5d3
23. Kg2h1 Ad3c2
24. Ag1e2 Ac2xa1
25. Ae2d1 (The Archbishop is trapped.)
25...Qd7c6
26. g3g4 g6g5
27. Ci3h5! (Very well placed!)

27...Rh8g8
28. Qf3i3 Nh6j5
29. Qi3i4 g5xf4
30. Qi4xj5 Bg7h6
31. Rj2j3!? f4xe3
32. Rj3i3 Bh6xi5
33. Ad1xe3 Rg8g5
34. h4xg5 f6xg5
35. Ae3xg5 Aa1c2
36. Ag5xi7 Cf8f2+
37. Kh1i1 Qc6d6+
38. Ki1j2 Cf2h1+
39. Ch5xh1 Ki8xi7
40. Nd2e4+ h7h6
41. Ri3xi5+ Ki7h8
42. Qj5xj6+ Kh8g8
43. Ri5i8+ (After the game i saw that G.V announced a mate in 6 that i've missed it. But it doesn't matter.)

43...Kg8f7
44. Ri8i7+ Kf7e8
45. Ne4xd6+ Ke8d7
46. Ch1xh6 Ra8f8
47. Ri7xe7+ Kd7c6
48. Re7xc7+ Kc6xc7
49. Qj6i7+ Kc7b8
50. Ch6e6 Ac2h7 1-0
--------------------------------------------

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

It depends on the definition of the "balanced game" of course.......

<>A balanced game is where the starting position is such that:(1.)all pawns have at least 1 >piece protecting them;(2.) Indian formations are possible;(3.)neither side has a definite >advantage on move 1(as is the case in Bird's and Capablanca Chess);(4.)Quick lines of >developement are fluid and available(only Gothic Chess meets all these requirements.

This is your definition of a balanced game. I have another. Another person has something different. So you see that you can't really say that a balanced games has..... as this is not a fact but only an opinion.

Anyway i agrre on 1).
I do care for 2) but i don't find it necessary for a balanced game.
As for the 3) it's wrong. How do you know that at Chess or Gothic Chess white or black hasn't a definite advantage at move 1? If you mean "obvious" advantage then i think that at Bird's variation this is not true.
I don't think 4) has nothing to do with a well-balanced game.

<>1.Cc3 probably is not the best move for White,like Edtrice` move sequence shows.If it >proves something than the contrary of his statement.
>This move is not a threat for Black`s weak point and he must not fear it.

I didn't say it should fear it. In fact it's a bad move for white to play.
BUT what is the important and what i've said is that WHEN white plays it, then black have only 4 playable moves. Have you seen this at Gothic Chess or Chess? No. At Gothic chess and Chess whatever move white plays, then black has at least 15-20 moves to play or to be more correct at least 9-11 moves that are good theoretically.

>Again I must say I see no decisive disadvantage in this variant,at best a small blemish.

Me too but as i've said, this is not the important thing. The important is that it has this small weakness while it's brother Gothic Chess, hasn't. So we should prefer Gothic Chess if we had to choose between these 2. But we haven't, so we can play both! But as our time is not infinite we should stick with the better one and this is G.C.

Atfer many games that he was sleeping Kramnik woke up! He would almost win the last game, but Leko found the nice...Rb7! Now Kramnik has a good position in order to win(very hard though).

PGN so far.......:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h6 5. g4 Bd7 6. Nd2 c5 7. dxc5 e6 8. Nb3 Bxc5
9. Nxc5 Qa5+ 10. c3 Qxc5 11. Nf3 Ne7 12. Bd3 Nbc6 13. Be3 Qa5 14. Qd2 Ng6 15.
Bd4 Nxd4 16. cxd4 Qxd2+ 17. Kxd2 Nf4 18. Rac1 h5 19. Rhg1 Bc6 20. gxh5 Nxh5 21.
b4 a6 22. a4 Kd8 23. Ng5 Be8 24. b5 Nf4 25. b6 Nxd3 26. Kxd3 Rc8

Seeing the game Ed Trice Vs AlexII, what i understand is that it's really an experiment of Ed at an opening he discussed at CCC some weeks before. Playing King's Gambit, Muzio gambit is really a suicide in my eyes.

What i really can't understand is the 11.Be5? move that Ed played. He was a Knight and a Bishop down, and gave his most powerful piece. I think 11.Qe2 would be MUCH better for white that is in an already lost position.

<>I cannot see any imbalance in this setup only because the early attack with the chancellor against the "weak" point c7 is not a good plan.

Right this is not the reason, but there is an imbalance in this setup for another reason.
When white plays: 1.Cc3 then black should immediatelly has to play one move to reject it! He can not play from the King's side as he would lose(or anyway he would have an important disadvantage). This restriction of freedom for the black's choices, is a huge drawback of this variation.

This means that on a game, whatever first move white will make, black should have the option of making many various moves and not be restricted to few.

>I would say better : Black is okay ,no fast refutation is possible and the setup is playable.

Right, no fast refutation is possible, and the game is playable but since there is the aforementioned inaccuracy in this game, something Gothic chess doesn't have, we should prefer the second for playing.


>Show us a plausible move sequence which is suitable to force a win for White.And only than you perhaps can substantiate,that the setup is inplayable.

As i've said the game is playable, but it is inferior to Gothic Chess since the lack of freedom in black's 1st move when white plays 1.Cc3 is decisive.

Well do you suggest that [b]should work[/b] should be bold? I can't support your opinion:-)

And how do you write with bold letters on this site? The: [B]text[/B] doesn't work.

<>George, any more wins with 1. f4 against Vortex? I am gradually expanding the opening book to add the >correct play where I see it went wrong.

I will start playing games against G.V 1.03 from Wednesday or even tomorrow, since i have started learning C programming and my time all these last 7 days was limited.

I wonder if it is difficult to add some kind of opening learning to Gothic Vortex? It would help it to avoid lost positions. Do you have any plans for this?

<>What works well with the program is sticking the king and rooks where they usually belong >and randomize the other pieces. This gives 740 different setups.

How did you come up with that number? My calculations give 720.

The number of initial positions where the Rooks and the King is on their "normal" places AND the Bishops are on different colors is:

(7!/4) - (5!/2)·(6+3) = 1260 - 540 = 720


>If you randomize all the pieces except that bishops are on opposite colors and king between >rooks there are 84,000 different ways.

I agree on that. The number F we are looking is:

F = (Σ[{i=1,8} (i+1)·i/2])·(7!/4) - (5!/2)·9·((Σ[{k=1,8} (k+1)·k/2])-6·3-4·5-2·7) - 6·a-4·b-2·c

where:
a = 2·(5!/2)·(6+3) + (5!/2)·(10+1)
b = 3·(5!/2)·(6+3) + 2·(5!/2)·(10+1)
c = 4·(5!/2)*(6+3) + 3·(5!/2)·(10+1)

And it really results in 84000.

How did you calculated that number? You used the following method or something different? I hope you didn't count all positions by hand:-)

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.

<>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.....

<>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........

<>I meant it more like "computers can be beaten", there are not invincible. For example, >you beating Vortex :)

Well 2 things:
I'm not beating Vortex since i only beat it with white and i lose with black, so we are somewhat even.
And Vortex has a long way to travel at the magic world of Gothic Chess, to be able to reach the level that Chess-engines are today. I could grab some wins from Fritz 1.0 and early versions of Chess Genius, but with todays development and hardware it's almost impossible. I can't win with any way Deep Fritz 8 at quad! The same i suppose will be with G.Vortex. At 8-9 years i wonder if i could still have any wins.


Speaking about your game with Deep Thought at 1989, we should note the following things:

7...Bxf3 was a bad move from D.Thought.
All todays commercial top engines(Shredder 8/7.04/7/6, Deep Fritz 8/7, Fritz 8/7, Hiarcs 9/8, Junior 8/7, Chess-Tiger 15/14, Chessmaster 10000/9000/8000, Gandalf 5, Ruffian 2.1.0/2.0.2) as also ALL free today engines suggest 7.Bxf3 as a bad move IMMEDIATELY and play 7...Nf6 instead.
Shredder 8 for example gives 7...Nf6 a +0.14 only for white while 7...Bxf3 a +1.03.

8...Qxd4 was an awful move according to all todays programs. And they realise it IMMEDIATELY. Shredder 8 for example gives 7...Qxd4 a +1.78 for white in 30 seconds and after 2 minutes a +2.09, while 7...Nf6 a +0.91. A huge difference for those who know. And while 7...Nf6 is almost steady as plies increase, the 7...Qxd4 has a big fail low. Deep Fritz 8 has a little problem on this as it does 19 seconds to realise it's a bad move. Very soon (50 seconds) it sees that it loses.

All this on a poor PIV 1500 MHz. When we speak about 3.2GHz or quads then it's a matter of seconds to see the truth.

These things show that the days that computers was material hunters, belong to the past. Sometimes even todays computers show from where they've come from and play for material but this is happening very seldom.

<>Well it is still possible to outdo the silicon machines. here is my chess game against the Deep >Thought computer from 1989:

Well this is not something i would say a right logic:-)

You have beaten (with an amazing way i can say) a computer at 1989 and you say: IT IS STILL possible to beat the machines.
Since your win was at 1989 you can't conclude from this, that it is still possible. It's obvious i think....

Although i should note, that i don't disagree to the statement about if or not is being possible to beat now the machines.

Well i download it, but the file size is the same with G.V 1.03, so it's the old one:-(

<Gothic Vortex thinks about 17...Rg8 for 28 seconds searching up to 9 plies, and then has a fail low to this (+217 -> -30) so it turns to 17...i6 after 48 seconds. And it shows a +135 score after 1:25 for 17...i6 at 9 plies.

Without doing any analysis OTB but only OMB(over my brain), why white has to play 16.Bxg4 and not 16.exf4 ? What black should play after 16.exf4 ?

Vortex 1.0.7 or newer, will be the engine that Gold and Nuclear version will have?

Nice analysis, but what about 15.Ai3 ? Is it a good move or black has a defence? Difficult to answer i know, as there are millions of options but my instinct,without doing any analysis, says that there must be a defence.

But i think it's better for G.V not to take the Archbishop. With this move i gain 2 VERY IMPORTANT things: The open j file that is a "killing" file for black and the open d1-j7 diagonal, which is a "killing" diagonal too. I think these 2 worth way more than my Archbishop. Does newer versions of G.V play this capture too?

I played a quick game against Gothic Vortex 1.03 at 30 seconds per move(Me at 20 minutes per 40 moves).
At move 15 i played an astonishing anti-computer sacrifice that Vortex accepted it, although this time, i think it wasn't so happy for it's position after having the material advantage, so i can praise G.V for knowing what was goind on at the game, although not completely.


Me Vs G.V 1.03
1. f2f4 d7d5
2. g2g3 g7g6
3. d2d4 Nb8c6
4. c2c3 Ni8h6
5. h2h3 Bh8f6
6. Ag1h2 e7e6
7. Ni1j3 Ag8e7
8. g3g4?! (It seems that i'm opening my position too much, but actually i just hoped for the move G.V played while i think Bh4 would have caused me many problems.)

8...Bf6g7?!
9. Bh1f3 f7f6
10. Ce1g2 O-O?! (Perhaps another move that G.V should have avoided. Now i have a direct attack. It should have played something, waiting for me, to see where my King will go. If it castled o-o-o then i will be in a very bad form since my attack would paralyse and my King would be in danger.)
11. i2i4! (Attack and not castle!)
11...e6e5
12. e2e3 Bc8e6
13. h3h4 f6f5
14. g4g5 (Now it's getting even harder for black. Is there any defence? Probably yes.)
14...Nh6g4
15. Ah2i3!! (Probably this doesn't worth 2 exclamation marks, but in a game agaist a computer it worths.)

15...Ng4xi3? (I don't know if i have a forced win, but it's too tough for black to find a defence. And especially now that G.V has enough moves that it's difficult to search with a high efficiency.)
16. Bf3xj7+ Ki8j8
17. j2xi3 i7i6
18. Nj3i5! Ae7xg5 (Well i was happy to see this. I thought that something was wrong about my attack but hopefully the desperation of G.V showed me that i was winning.)
19. f4xg5 Bg7xi5
20. Bj7xi6+ Kj8i8
21. Rj1j8+! (Nice! Easy tactics and a well known pattern of course.)
21...Ki8xj8
22. Cg2j2+ Bi5j4
23. Cj2xj4+ Kj8i8
24. Cj4j6+ Ki8i7
25. Bi6xh7 Rh8xh7
26. Qd1i6+ Ki7h8
27. Qi6xh7# 1-0

I see at the bottom of the page that Gothic Vortex will not run at Windows ME.
This is strange since i have ME and it runs?!?!

Or do you mean that the GOLD edition or the NUCLEAR will not run at ME? Damn! Why?

What is the reason for that?

<>The Safe Check method seems like a rather hard way to figure the strength and power of >each piece. Why not just compare how many squares each piece can cover in one move? >Obviously some of the piece's positions when doing the counting will have a great impact >on the total, but some sort of average can be figured into it.

Doing this we have:

Chancellor= 1720
Queen= 1672
Rook= 1280
ArchBishop= 832
Knight= 440
Bishop= 392

So we see that something is wrong. A bishop can't be weaker than Knight. What is wrong?
It's the method, that underestimates many things. Of course safe check method has it's weak parts too, but it seems it is a better estimator for the piece values.

But a very hard question is what really is a piece's value? How we should define the "piece value"? What's the meaning behind this? Can anyone find a good definition of the piece value?


>It seems like the value that is assigned in regular Chess should be adjusted to the game >situation. That's what I do when deciding to make a trade or not. Sometimes a well placed >Knight is worth almost a Rook.

Deep Junior 8.0 knows this well, after the game with Kasparov:-)
Here it played Rae8?!:
r4rk1/pb1n1ppp/2qN4/4p1Pn/2p1P3/2Q1BN2/P
P3P1P/2KR3R b - - 0 17

>Especially when the position is blocked with lots of Pawns and both sides have a >Bishop to keep the Pawns guarded.

I have clearly said that the values were random.

Actually the safe check method is not applied to the Pawns. What is really happens in this method is that it predicts/tries to evaluate, the relative values between all the pieces except Pawns.

Let's say for example, that we find with safe check method that:
Knight=0.3 , Bishop=0.4, Queen=1.2
(the values are random)

Then we know from our (actually from GM's) experience that a Knight is worth 3 Pawns. So the previous values are adjusted properly to give:

Pawn= 1
Knight= 3
Bishop = 4
Queen = 12

Well "ughaibu" and "danoschek" made some "------" comments.

Suppose 2 cats play the Cat-Gothic Chess game. The Cat-Gothic Chess game has the same rules as Gothic Chess but at every move a cat can give it's turn to the opponent and don't play nothing.

As cats are stupid, can any human say them why this game is not fair and one player may have the advantage, so they should start playing Gothic Chess instead?

<>Does not the amount of moves required to deliver mate correspond to piece "strength"?

Absolutely has a relation with the piece strength. But it's not the only factor of course.

And that's the weak part of the "safe check" procedure in order to find the piece values. It only takes into consideration the safe checks a piece can give to an empty board at every opponents King position. Yet the piece values it predicts is amazingly close to that most GM's think.
This is inexplicable and seems incredible to me!

I wonder if a similar method that would calculate the percentage of safe threats of the Rook for example, at every piece, what would give?

<>Oh well, you get a feeling for a game and choose by your predilection. Sure you can use >arithmatic to demonstrate that gothic's extra pieces dont compensate for the larger board but so what?

What are you talking about? You are miles away from what i've been saying...........

>Some people like gothic chess and who are we to arbitrate their taste?

I have never tried to criticize anyone of course because he likes Gothic Chess. In fact i'm one of the best supporters of this game!

>Merely proving it's triviality doesn't detract from it's vulgar appeal.

Proving it's triviality?????????? Come on!
Vulgar appeal?????????????? Are you serious?

<First of all i completely disagree with your previous post. You tried to prove or anyway to give some explanations about: "why a larger board tends to "dilute" the strength of the pieces" and that "pieces on a smaller board are stronger". These two statements CAN NEVER be proven as true or false since they are not defined properly. The reason for that is simple:

These two statements have the expressions: "dilute the strength of the pieces" meaning "reduce the strength of pieces" AND "are stronger".
These 2 expressions are not real and have no meaning since words like "stronger" WITHOUT the "in comparison to" OR the "than that of" are pointless.

Now if you meant: "pieces on a smaller board are stronger than a bigger board", we have again something not very logical since we compare how strong the pieces are in 2 differents boards-worlds. This has no meaning.


What we have to do is simple: If with one way we have that in one game (G-1) (with a board size LxK) we have the values for the pieces:
Piece-X1 = E1
Piece-X2 = E2
.............
Piece-Xn = En
(the values E1,E2,...,En has been at a increasing order.)

and in another game (G-2) (with a board size (L+H)x(K+G)) the values are:
Piece-X1 = R1
Piece-X2 = R2
.............
Piece-Xn = Rn
(the values R1,R2,...,Rn has been at a increasing order.)

Then to have a valid comparison of the strength of every piece (suppose the Piece-Xz) at G-1 in comparison with the same piece in the game G-2, we should compare the Ez/E1 and Rz/R1.

What this means is that in order to compare the strength of every piece at G-1 in comparison with the same piece at the G-2, we compare the relative value of the piece in relation with another piece(Piece-1 for example) at game G-1, with the relative value of the piece in relation with the same piece(Piece-1) as before, at game G-2.


But although not very logical, even if you meant "pieces on a smaller board are stronger than a bigger board" the below procedure you used is wrong.


>You can see on the 100x100 board, with 10,000 squares, there is no way it is going to reach >6,400 (64%) of these squares. It will reach (100-1) x 4 = 396. You can see 396/10,000 is a very >small fraction.

I disagree to your example as a proof for that. And in fact i can find reasons at your example that contradict to your conclusion-statement.
I disagree as a proof because while the Queen on a bigger board covers less percentage of the board, the same exists for the other pieces also.

And altough with a first thought we can say that the Queen covers a smaller percantage of board, so it's weaker, when we compare her power to that of Pawns at 8x8 and 100x100 we can imagine it's much more powerful since with one move it goes from one size to another at every board, while the Pawns at the first case will do 8 centuries, but at the second will do 100 centuries. Also the same exists for the Knights. At a 8x8 board are cats compared to the Ferrari-Queen but on a 100x100 are just turtles.


>In this sense, pieces on a smaller board are stronger since they have a greater "density".

Although i don't know the game of Ghuu Shogi, i have to say that a bigger board with even more tactical abilities is not always something good and more fun. In fact there is a limit on the board and on the branching factor of the game, and after that human brain is incapable of playing a good game. A 12x12 board with many new pieces create a dizzy brain......

I think Gothic Chess board 10x8 is the upper limit for a human in order to play a competitive game without blundering all the time.....

Just my opinion.........

Well i quickly calculated the values of some of the pieces for Omega Chess according to the "safe check" procedure.

So i calculated that:
Pawn= 1.00 (Definition)
Knight= 1.96
Bishop= 2.99
Rook= 5.00
Queen= 7.99.
(I've done this very quickly and it is possible that it's wrong but i will check it tomorrow).
I don't have time for calculating the Wizard and the Champion but perhaps i will do it tomorrow.

These values differ from that on strategy tips at Omegachess.com.

But i think that their values for some pieces are wrong. Giving the queen a 12 is something that i can understand since the 10x10+4 board makes the Queen even more powerful than in Chess, but not 12 Pawns! It's way too much. Also the Bishop it's not possible to be 4 Pawns while Knight is 2 Pawn-points, since the 10x10+2 board is not enough for this. If this was right then 2 Knights would be equivalent to one Bishop but this is obvious false.

OK 10$ is nothing.

But to understand better:
You are talking about an updade and about a high-end version? The updade will be different from this high-end version? And what are the differences?

And you say: "those who buy Vortex now will get......of $10".
I guess you mean: "those who BOUGHT Vortex OR who will buy it now, will get......of $10"
Right?

I played my second game against Gothic Vortex 1.0.3, this time with black, and had an unexpected win. And yet not only this, but for the first time i totally outplayed Vortex with black pieces. The final blow is nice again.

The game was at 1 minute per move for G.V 1.0.3 and 40 minutes for 40 moves repeating, for me.

G.V 1.0.3 Vs George

1. d2d4 Ni8h6
2. Ni1h3 c7c6
3. g2g3 d7d5
4. Bc1f4 f7f6
5. Qd1d3 g7g6
6. Nb1c3 Nb8a6 (Here white seems better....)
7. a2a3 j7j6
8. Bh1g2 Na6c7
9. f2f3 Bh8g7
10. Ag1f2 Ag8f7
11. O-O Nc7e6
12. Bf4c1 f6f5
13. Bc1e3 Bg7f6 (Now white king should start feeling uncomfortable)

14. Ra1d1 i7i5! (I forget the castle and instead start an attack)

15. Qd3d2 g6g5
16. Nc3a4? (What a total waste of time.......)

16...b7b6!?
17. Na4c3 (What did this Knight achieved?)

17...Ce8g7
18. Rh1g1 Cg7i6
19. Af2h1 j6j5
20. a3a4? (What G.V wanted to do with this? A counterattack while my attack is miles ahead? Very bad move!)

20...j5j4
21. b2b4 i5i4
22. Nh3f2 Nh6j5

23. f3f4?? (G.V gives me the diagonal i like and at the same time paralyses the battery Q+B at c1-j8, removes it's Queen of the game and makes a competely crambed position for white so white has to sacrifice a Knight in order to have some play at the queenside but it's pointless as the game is in white's kingside.)

23...g5g4
24. Nc3xd5 c6xd5
25. Bg2xd5 Bf6xj2+! (Now the problems begin for G.V. I was not sure if it was a good move, it was just a speculative move from my side, since i saw that after ...i3 white would be in troubles anyway.)

26. Ki1j1 Nj5i3+!
27. h2xi3 j4xi3
28. Nf2xg4 (Desperation, but i don't see anything else as Cj4 is crushing.)

28...Ci6j4
29. Ng4i5 Bj2i1+
30. Ni5j3 i4xj3
31. i2xj3 Af7xj3
32. Ah1xj3 Cj4xj3+
33. Kj1i2 Cj3h2+
34. Ki2xi3 Rj8j3# 0-1

Will these new features of Gothic Vortex, be included at the free upgrade to Gothic Vortex 1.2 after world championship? Does really the upgrade will have the stunning new graphics and 3&4(&5) endgame tablebases? This would be nice......

Any news from your computer opponents at the world championship? Do they have come closer to G.V? Hope we will see some good matches.....

If it can find fail low moves sooner it will play stronger and additionally more fair, since in the above game i used 32 minutes for my first 38 moves while G.V used 58 minutes for the first 37 moves, due to the many fail low it had. While it was supposed to use 1 minute per move (mean value i believe).