The sections are complete for the first round of the 2023 Fourth Quarter Open Number 4 Embassy Chess.

2023 Fourth Quarter Open Number 4 Embassy Chess

It will be ScaryMonster (8-0) versus kurtovec (6½ -1½) in a one game match for the championship.

Section 2 had kurtovec and andrey-king playing for a spot in the next round when dp13 won a game from each of them to keep it even between them. kurtover received 1½ to andrey-king's ½ in their match and moved into the final round.

There's been some interesting games in this tournament. I hope the last game is a good one.

I will be starting up a new tournament soon. I will also get some other types of games going. I'll post here, and in those other game's appropriate discussion board when I have created them.
Thank you for playing and viewing.

Update for the 2023 Fourth Quarter Open Number 4 Embassy Chess tournement.

Section 1 is complete. Congratulations to ScaryMonster. He won every game to finish 8-0.
Second place ended tied with last quarter's champion Zak tying newcomer to Embassy Chess basplund.
They both finished 5-3 and split their two games with each other.
grmange and Walter Montego got spanked by those three players to finish the section.

2023 Fourth Quarter Open Number 4 Embassy Chess

There's one game left to finish in Section 2.

2023 Fourth Quarter Open Number 4 Embassy Chess

Free to enter-- No prize offered

I have been hoping that Fencer would correct the castling movement, though the game plays well as it is. Same thing with the notation used as some of it is from the Gothic Chess change over of 2005. So Marshall is C and Cardinal is A for those of us that use the notation as compared to the figures.

I have slightly modified the time parameters, it probably won't be noticeable to anyone that played in the 2023 Second Quarter tournament.

If anyone would like me to add more tournament game types to this list before this tournament starts, drop a line and we'll see. It will have all of the parameters of this tournament. I think I have until the start of this tournament to add any more games.

The tournament has finished.

Zak is the winner
He went undefeated with 12-0 Win/Loss record.

A three way tie for second at 8-4
kurtovec, audrey-king, and Walter Montego

2023 Second Quarter Open Number 3 Embassy Chess

Thank you all for playing. I will be organizing another Embassy Chess tournament in the coming weeks. I'll post here, and also go through the list I had from the last tournament invitations.

Free to enter-- No prize offered

Yes, it has been seventeen years since I last created a two game round robin tournament. I might also get a few of the other games I did through 2004 to 2006 Dark Chess, Extinction Chess, and Janus Chess. The most attended of the Quarterly tournaments was the Third Quarter Dark Chess Number 3 with 31 entries. I offered a year's Rook membership as a prize in that tournament. I might start doing that again. We'll see.

I have been hoping that Fencer would correct the castling movement, though the game plays well as it is. Same thing with the notation used as some of it is from the Gothic Chess change over of 2005. So Marshall is C and Cardinal is A for those of us that use the notation as compared to the figures.

The time parameters will afford you eight days to bank, and you'll need to move three or four times per week if your opponent moves fast to not have your time lower. You may certainly play faster. :)

2023 Second Quarter Open Number 3 Embassy Chess

Clandestine 1: Wow!

Though I always thought he was a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/narcissisticpd.htm I am still quite amazed by the link you have enclosed, Clandestine! I am tripping on this, and do not know what to make of it. I had many run-ins with him back when he was active on this discussion board, but it has been very quiet for many years now.

It does explain some of his actions towards Embassy Chess, and maybe why some of his early followers did some of the dirty work for him. I wonder where the story will end? That link's posters have leveled some serious charges and accusations against him. The timestamps are current or only a few months old.

Pankratos: I know a bit about its history and how it got its name. I have proposed naming the two halves of the board, the Royalside (A-E) and the Courtside (F-J).

The castling on this site isn't quite right, but it works. The King when castled should either move next to the Rook, or be one space from the Rook. Notated on the Royalside as O-B, or O-C, and O-H, or O-I on the Courtside. As compared to how it is done on this site of just moving the King three squares toward the Rook and its adoption of the regular Chess notation, O-O ans O-O-O. It's a minor thing, as castling isn't as good of a plan for some reason, but this would fix the play and give the King a bit of space and some options. As you can imagine, adding two powerful pieces to the board really causes the King trouble.

The name comes from Modern Bird's Chess. MBC abbreviated instead of EC, and from there it is easy to say Em-ba-ssy. Henry Bird invented his version of the game in 1874. I do not know if he knew of Carrera Chess from 1617, yes Sixteen-seventeen, or not. About 50 or 60 years later Capablanca experimented with these pieces on 10 × 10 and 10 × 8 sized boards. Embassy Chess is from 2005. Its initial position is an attempt to find the best placement of the pieces at the start of the game, which a few players through the times found flaws in Bird's and Capablanca's set ups. The pieces are similarly lined up as in Grand Chess from I believe 1974, but played on a 10 × 8 with castling and regular Pawn promotion rules.

There is a symmetry to the pieces, and it balances all of the moving ways equally. Four pieces move as Rooks, four as Bishops, and four as Knights. The initial set up has all Pawns guarded at least once by a piece not counting the King. The Rook moving pieces guard the corners and the King. The Bishop moving pieces cover the squares diagonally equally from each side of the board.

As for opening theory, I have played a few games with White using the Queen's Pawn opening. Unfortunately I am not a strong enough player to see the depth on the many variations. Embassy Chess is a lot deeper than meets the eye, especially when compared to regular Chess. Many of the ideas of regular Chess carry over to Embassy Chess. The wider board can make the end game a bit different in many situations. Atrotos Atrotos made some videos notating a few games. I believe he posted the links if you scroll down a bit. 8 posts from here.

Knights can be very weak in the end game, especially if near the edge of the board. There's a few charts and studies of the relative strengths of the pieces on various sized boards. For the 10 × 8 sized board, Reinhard Scharnagl and Ed Trice calculated differing values for them. I use a modified chart that's easy to remember, but for the most part you can use the regular Chess chart keeping the Marshall and Cardinal at values just less than the Queen. The Marshall is a very strong piece, almost the strength of the Queen. The Cardinal is almost as strong as the Marshall. Very mobile from the start, unlike the Marshall which can have trouble with a closed position.

Here's the simplified chart.

9 = Queen
8 = Marshall
7 = Cardinal
5 = Rook
3¼ = Bishop
3 = Knight
1 = Pawn

Experience will show you when to think differently about trades based on these numbers. The Bishops and Knights can vary a lot and some players devalue the Knight to 2½ or 2¾. The Cardinal losses a lot of its strength when in the corner. As for the other charts, I think they can be found somewhere in the depths of this discussion board, or maybe you can try Reinhard Scharnagl who is SMIRF Engine on this site. SMIRF Engine He wrote a program to play many of the 10 × 8 Chess variants and also created Capablanca Random Chess.

Beren the 32nd:

I was going to reply B × B E4-H7, but this won't work after you move the Knight. I'll think some on it.

Embassy Chess (Walter Montego vs. Beleg)

This recently completed game has me wondering if my 17th move was sound. I moved 17 B G3-I5. My opponent captured the Bishop with his Rook Pawn and the rest of the moves led to a forced checkmate. I had plans for many other moves he might make, but I can't say for sure if he could've made me pay a price for this move, or if I had all the bases covered.

Atrotos: The old abbreviation for Knight was Kt, but that faded away many years ago.

Lightbug: I like both games, but I prefer Embassy Chess.

Why? I like the structure of Embassy Chess.It is very regular Chess like in appearance. But even familiar looking openings are a completely new game. Though regular Chess often has amazing subtleties in slight differences in openings it often transposes into the same game or the difference matters little, and of course it has been studied for centuries. In Embassy Chess all this is true too, but even more so as it can very fast from the start. So far it seems to me that Embassy Chess is much more tactical in the beginning of the game which I'm sure is caused from having more pieces, and powerful ones at that, on the board while the King is still the same. The board is larger, but I think over all the power increase is more than the larger board dissipates as compared to the same pieces on the 10 × 10 of Grand Chess. Comparing those two games and a more or less harmless check in Grand Chess is often just a matter of moving the King back a square, whereas in Embassy Chess these checks can cause a major problem as the check often has to be blocked and you must be on guard for this.

Positional players will have a hard time against the tactical player, though I've played a few that play positionally. Unfortunately I am not a strong enough player to see if I'm right or not. I wish stronger players and regular Chess masters would take up Embassy Chess and give it some of the study they devote to regular Chess, but I suppose this can said of much variants.

Janus Chess is a good game. I don't play it as much as Embassy Chess. The power is almost the same as Embassy Chess, but the positioning of the pieces makes it play less like regular Chess. For those that like the random set ups, this might appeal to them. I think an interesting variant of Janus Chess would be to play it Extinction Chess style as it has the two Jauses and I'm sure this would add to the already wild tactical play of Extinction Chess.

January All Games over 1600

I joined this tournament and am hoping to get a few more Embassy Chess players into it to make it a good tournament.
It starts January 26th. 5 player maximum section, so at most it'll add four games to your list with a three day time control.
So sign up and let's play. :)

I've posted six Embassy Chess games in the waiting games area. Three of each color with a Fischer clock time bonus of 2 days 8 hours.
Anyone up for a game or two?
12-18-9 Edit-->One left, though if you'd like to play drop a line and I'll send a game or two your way.

1-7-10 Edit I posted nine games of Embassy Chess if anyone would like a game or two. Slightly faster Fischer Clock, but plenty of time after a few moves.

1-24-10 Edit I posted nine games of Embassy Chess.

happy hermit: I hadn't realized that we'd played before. An old alter-ego or account it would have to be. Embassy Chess coming next.

happy hermit: Sure, I'll send you a few invitations.

Congratulations tenuki on winning the Second Quarter 2006 Embassy Chess tournament. Wow, that can take some time, can't it? I'm glad I set the playoff to two wins. Three can take along time.

2006 Second Quarter Open Number 2 Embassy Chess

2006 Second Quarter Open Number 2 Embassy Chess
DeleteReply (box)Edit

SMIRF Engine: Did SMIRF win this game? The link no longer has a game board that I can play through to see how the game was played. Is there another place or link for that? It's way too much trouble for me to try to play through it at home without a 10 × 8 board and pieces.

SMIRF Engine: So this means that SMIRF had White ahead when he took the Pawn with the Knight? Maybe there's hope for me yet. :)

SMIRF Engine: I hadn't thought of using a program to check the moves. Thanks for entering it in. After the 29... P-J6, how does SMIRF have it scored?
Is this the evaluation? 08:28.4 (13.01=) +2.496
Is this before move 24, or after move 29?

SMIRF Engine: That's all right Reinhard. I sometimes am on the winning side. :)
I played through those moves and it looks like Black would get a Rook and I'dve taken a Pawn and a Bishop. All those pieces would be lined up on C7 too.I didn't think of this line that your program did, but when I finally gave up trying to find a move I rationalised going for it as I'd at the least just be down the exchange of a Rook for a Bishop and I have his King exposed with me also having a passed Pawn. With SMIRF's moves I'd have the Knight on G6 too and he wouldn't be easily dislodged.

All these pieces can get quite overwhelming looking for moves. I imagine with a clock running it'd sort out the masters in a hurry.

Embassy Chess (Walter Montego vs. jindrasek)

Here's the game after my opponent's 23rd move. I took the Pawn with the Knight and left the Rook for the taking. Lots of things can happen. It went the way I was planning, but I'm not sure if my opponent had better moves or not.
He didn't take the Rook right away as he must've saw that I had some serious threats coming. The Rook was indirectly guarding my action on E5 with a threat of moving to D8 if lots of trades started happening. So he took the Knight and I took the Bishop. Then he took the Rook. I took the Pawn on C7 throwing a check on his King. I think I had 'im beat at this point, but he could just move his King instead of taking the Bishop with his Marshall pinning it there for my Pawn to do the deed. What do you think?

Anyone up for a game or two? I've posted sixteen, open to all in the waiting games area.

And just for you George, they're Fischer Clocked timed. :) Take a pair and let's duke it out.

ChessCarpenter: This mind numbing, brute force number crunching is the complete antithesis of why I play games. There's not an ounce of romanticism or sportsmanship to it. I suppose it has it's place in the realm of theory and understanding of games without chance in them. I'm glad to hear the numbers are so large as to make it more or less impossible to know every single outcome possible. There's other ways to do it besides knowing every move possible. A set of rules for each group of remaining pieces might use less memory, but I have the feeling that's not the case in this instance. Have you tried this approach? And then there's SMIRF Engine's point about just what good will such tables be if the game is already decided when it gets to that point? It's amazing that just having the extra 16 squares and the addition of four pieces on the board makes the numbers get so much larger. Regular Chess itself has very big numbers when one wants to count all the moves possible. What about the 10 × 10 board for Grand Chess? It uses the same pieces as Embassy Chess. Will the number be slightly more, or lots more? I'm thinking lots more. Though the restricted Pawn promotion might keep it down more than the unrestricted Pawn promotion of Embassy Chess.

What's a Chancellor and Archbishop? There's no game on this site with those pieces. Do you mean the Marshall and Cardinal or Janus? They are not new pieces. They're more than 100 years old.

iceninejkw: And there's always Dark Chess. Machines aren't playing that game very good and it's hard to get outside help on the internet as the board is kept dark until the game is over.

I have a few in the waiting room if anyone would a game or two. I will be gone this weekend but will move when able.

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1555352

Kind of neat. It was a fairly equal game with unequal pieces until this came up.

JinkyOng: The Chess variants website has a lot of information about Capablanca's Chess. Apparently he made four or five versions of it on different sized boards with various rules. Even the Marshall and Cardinal have had different names. They have a photograph section of some sets too. Here's the link:
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/capablanca.html

After the description of Capablanca Chess there's related links and games. They have a 10 × 10 set up and a 10 × 8 set up that can be played. I think Grand Chess is a better game than the 10 × 10 Capablanca Chess and it uses the same pieces. I like the 10 × 8 version of Embassy Chess the best so far of the games that stay closer to regular Chess.

tenuki: After he moved his Cardinal in move 17 to F7 was it all over for him, or did he have a way out of it? Before or after that move? I tried a few things after the move and it looks like you had the game sewn up with the Cardinal moved to F7.

JinkyOng: Being able to beat him at his own game just proves that he's not the best player of it and that you can play it better than him. It doens't confirm or deny who you might be. I told Ed a long time ago that as soon as someone really good learned to play these games he wouldn't be the top player. He also has a tremendous advantage over most people at his game. The long lead time of playing it and studying it. His skills at computer programming and understanding the value of the pieces on the larger board. His familiarity with the icons used here. His motivation for winning. Playing it and defeating him playing it speed style is something, but it doesn't prove that you could beat him playing turn based or over the board in a slower paced game. Does his site have longer time controls? He can still play here, but his game isn't on this site any more. Embassy Chess or Capablanca Chess would be the same game, but he would lose his advantage in the opening playing those games. He used to brag about how well he'd studied the openings of his game. I think this is one of the reasons Fischer came up with his random Chess set up, to curtail the book players from winning the game in the opening.

bengood24: You might be right, but I want it clarified. And it doesn't awswer the other questions seeing how this is a turned based site to begin with. One should say what is meant, or explain what they are saying if they're not going to use the standard or accepted terminology. Whether or not JinkyOng is Bobby Fischer has nothing to do the name of the variant on this site or one that I'm familiar with. Fischer Random Chess is the name of a game that is on this site. My Random Chess is not. Also, there's no live play on this site for those time controls, so a location would be needed to play it. If there is such a location on the internet, two other things could have been done. Supplying the link to play and also posting at that location a desire to play someone with those time controls. Neither was done and now the offer to play has been withdrawn. What's the point?

And again, if it is Fischer Random Chess this is the wrong board to be posting to play that game and it belongs on the 8 × 8 Chess variants discussion board.

JinkyOng: I've never heard of that game. How does it go? Where is it played live? Do others play this game? I'm surprised someone good at it doesn't take you up on your bet.

panzerschiff: This would be the wrong board for that and he's been playing Gothic Chess on the other site, so I was thinking of the other games that are offered here. I suppose we'll have to wait until he logs on again. It's either a typo or you might have it. On this site that game is on the 8 × 8 Chess variants discussion board and it called Fischer Random Chess or FRC.

JinkyOng: MRC? Is this MBC or CRC? I play MBC, also known as Embassy Chess on this site. I only know of one other place that has it, but they haven't set it up as a way to play it live either (Chess Variants site). Same thing with CRC- Capablanca Random Chess except I don't play that version. Where would we play this game? Would I have a chance having eight extra minutes to think? You'd have to move blazingly fast at the beginning of the game. You probably live too far from me to just drive over and play a couple games. :)

SMIRF Engine: You too are just speculating. It seems everyone has their own view of what they interpret of the "facts". After the deal with Bumble, I thought those of us that where around then would know better and not get it going again in a similiar situation. As it really makes little difference as to who each of us really are we might as well talk about 10 × 8 Chess variants or related subjects. The personalities themselves can be interesting, but I would rather not have this board used for advancing one's agenda unless it is for the Chess variants listed.

JinkyOng has posted on Ed's site about the games being made available for public viewing. Ed has responded that he will show them as given permission to do so. I wish Ed would have kept the graphics the same as they were on this site, but I'll get used to them if I want to follow the games as played over there. I suppose one of these days I'll get a 10 × 8 board and a Chess set for it and be able to actually look at them instead of the icons on the screen.

JinkyOng: If you don't care, then I don't care. I've had enough messages about the speculation of it. You can beat Ed at Gothic Chess and even say it wasn't that hard for you, then you're obviously a lot better of a player than I am. Though speed Gothic Chess is not something I've ever played, I doubt if I'd have much of a chance against either one of you.

Perhaps we can talk about 10 × 8 Chess variants? Are you new to playing them? I've only been playing them for about two years now. I told Ed a long time ago that someday good Chess players would learn these games and then it'd be a whole different deal. We have had lots of debate about the use of machines and programs too. It seems that regular Chess is just about mastered by them and these larger boards still give us players a chance. From what I've seen it will just be a matter of time before that's not true.

JinkyOng: Perhaps you can give your permission? Much as I'd like to believe you beat GothicInventor at his own game, I have trouble believing you did. Plus it'd be easy for me to replay the game on that site and see how the game played out.

You're confusing me too. If you wanted your game private, why'd you post it here and draw attention to it?

JinkyOng: You say the game is publicly posted? I'd like to see it so that I might replay it. That site has a replay section and I'll be able to follow the game better. I could put the descriptive notation you posted in a window next to the game as the moves are made.

JinkyOng: This is the first time I've seen descriptive notation used for a 10 × 8 board. Is this game on the Gothic Chess site?

2006 Second Quarter Open Number 1 Janus Chess

3 day time limit standard vacation

Caissus: Known as the Devil's Advocate in these parts.

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

panzerschiff: Interesting ways for it to go. I'll try the gambit in future games. If you'd like to play a game of both colors starting both games this way, let me know and we'll give it a go.

Pythagoras: After reading my own post I'm thinking that perhaps I have it wrong. Winning the games is still important. Still, the goal of the programmer is also something to judge his result by.

Pythagoras: You have completely missed my point. The elegance of the solution. If we say that table look up and the use of books isn't allowed, then I say SMIRF is the superior program. You are being a results merchant. If every move in a game was known, the table look up method would work to perfection. Yes, yes, you've already proved there's less atoms in the universe than possible moves so there'd be little chance of having a way to store or access such a table. But supposing it was possible to have such a book of every move. Now compare this to a bunch of rules that tell when where to move that has maybe a 100,000 lines of instruction. Which would you say is the better solution? This is what I'm getting at. To me, anybody can use these table look up methods, opening, middle, or end game. To have a program not do this and still play well is to me an amazing thing and it is a program that I'd rather play against. What's the point of playing some machine that just looks up its moves? I might as well go get a book and look up for my moves too. It just becomes a matter of who has the better or larger data base. What's the point except that you'll win every time? When that happens it is no longer a game that is being played.

Programs that use an opening book is indeed a very helpful thing. I think that if all bits used or available to be used are counted, the program that uses the least is the best. Reinhard says 60,000 bytes. Both of you say Vortex has 7,000,000 for its program, another 7,000,000 positions for its opening book, and 10,000,000,000 for its endgame table. By my way of looking at it, SMIRF is the better program if it could play as well as Vortex. So maybe it can't play blitz Chess, but how about Embassy Chess at tournament time controls. What's that you say? Vortex can't play Embassy Chess? Or it's opening book is useless in Embassy Chess? Then SMIRF is by far the better program just by being versatile. I know which of the two I'd rather have. Can Vortex play the CRC as well as SMIRF? This is what I mean, SMIRF is able to play these games equally well without the use of books.

Sure, if the goal of the problem is to devise the best playing program by whatever means at one's disposal, then yes, the program that wins the most is the better program. It was my understanding of SMIRF that Reinhard purposely did not work with that goal in mind, but instead wanted to create a program that played as it does.

Pythagoras: You're confusing me. You say the bases don't matter and thenyou say they're very important to a program's success a couple sentences later? Which is it?

"Yes of course opening books is a whole different matter. Opening books help a program VERY VERY much to achieve good results..... "

and

"We have that Gothic Vortex is 7 MB (many of these MB are just unused) and that its opening book is another 7 MB and its tablebases are 10 GB. So if you believe that all these 10GB - 14MB of tablebases do make a difference then you ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG!"

To me end table bases are the same as opening ones. They're just tables to look up the moves. They're not an example of the computer thinking. Just because a very large portion of these books aren't used during doesn't mean they are not a part of the program's strength. Take these opening books away from Vortex or the others that use them, will they beat SMIRF?

Pythagoras: You're wrong if you don't think that's amazing to have such a big difference. Take those data bases away from the those machines and get the program down to SMIRF's size. Which machine is going to win?

How do you know that's not the reason? I was just speculating as to why it doesn't seem to play blitz games well, but you say it as if you're an authority on it.

This other program is not SMIRF, so why should it's weakness in blitz games have anything to do with SMIRF's? It the author's note telling you that SMIRF works in the identical manner?

SMIRF Engine: Those size differences are truly amazing! I have always wondered why you didn't add an opening book, but I like the fact that you didn't. It plays as I do, just winging it every move. Perhaps this is why it doesn't do well in the speed and blitz matches against other programs? Those machines don't really think up their moves in the opening, they just look up the position in a book and play the recommended move. That, to me, isn't thinking. It is impressive data retrival, but it ain't thinking.

How does SMIRF do in 15 minutes for each side games? How about tournament timed games, like 40 moves in 2 or 3 hours? How about over the internet like how SMIRF plays against me?

One thing that is missing from this discussion is the way SMIRF thinks up its moves. It plays without an opening book. I'm thinking it is equally strong in Embassy, Capablanca, Capablanca Random, Bird's, and Gothic Chess. Can the same be said for the other programs that only play one version? Does the Vortex program or those others listed play Embassy Chess or Capablanca Random Chess? The random set up version is the one that forces the computers to play without as strong of a opening book or none at all. I can see Embassy Chess eventually having an opening book if only because I'm gradually teaching myself which things to do in the opening when playing it. I'm sure others that have taken up Embassy Chess and playing it regularly are doing the same thing even if they're not taking notes or writing a computer program. You still keep things in your mind as to how it went in the opening and either try to repeat it, or if it went poorly the last time to make changes or avoid it.

Can the Vortex's or the other programs' opening book be shut off when play Gothic Chess? If so, can they still defeat SMIRF as you guys say it can? Can Vortex or the other programs' play Capablanca Random Chess? If so, how do they fare against SMIRF? If they can't do either of these things, the programs really aren't too easily comparable, though obviously the results from Gothic Chess matches are still valid for comparing how the programs play that one version.

HalfPawn: Not the SMIRF I play. It does something like that and I expect to be losing shortly.

panzerschiff: Yes, not Janus! In Embassy Chess the files A through E are the set up just like regular Chess. When I tried a Queen's Gambit with White a few weeks back it did not work as the Bishops on the courtside are shifted over. The one I'm talking about in this instance does seem to work and the courtside Bishop for Black will come in handy the moment he can move the G file Pawn forward and guard the advanced D file Pawn. Plus if White moves his Knight to E4 Black can move P F7-F5. This make White spend another move. As good as this looks, I still am not sure it's a good thing. I've noticed that pushing the Pawns out in these larger board games can come back to haunt you. Targets for your opponent. It could go like Alekhine's defense sort of, just with the colors reversed.
This opening might work in Grand Chess too. I doubt if it comes up in regular Chess as not too many people would move the Knight there on their second move with White and block the C file Pawn. I don't think it would work in Gothic Chess as the Kings are shifted one square and the check threats need to be there for Black.

It's just a couple moves into the game, but it does seem playable. It goes well for Black at first, but White doesn't seem too hurt. I haven't had an opponent not accept the gambit, but that's an option too.

1 P D2-D4_______ P D7-D5
2 N B1-C3_______ P C7-C5
3 P×P D4-C5_____ P D5-D4

Is this sound? I'll keep trying it as Black unless I get spanked as bad as when I tried a regular Queen's Gambit with the White pieces in Embassy Chess. I doubt if I'll ever have the White pieces as I don't like starting the game moving the Queen's Pawn.