HalfPawn: The answer is yes. Chess Variants has it. I'm not sure how their deal works though. I've not joined their site.
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/presets/embassy.html

The game is only two years old. If Fencer had not added it to this site I have the feeling it would still be an obscure game in Kevin's mind not being played anywhere. I'm glad it's here. It's a good game.

HalfPawn: http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=74
Grand Chess is on this site. It is played on a 10 × 10 board. It has its own discussion board on this site too. It uses the same pieces as Bird's, Capablanca, Gothic, and Embassy Chess. Check the rules page out. The pieces are set up as in Embassy Chess except that the Rooks are back one row from the rest of the pieces. This game has no castling and the Pawns can promote on the 8, 9, or 10th row and can only promote to a piece that your opponent has captured from you. With the Rooks being able to move from the start of the game it has a different play to it than the other large games using these pieces. With all the other pieces up on the second and third rows it makes the play seem like a 10 × 8. It's a pretty good game. The back rows aren't too important later in the game. Early in the game they come handy. Besides positioning your Rooks, you can sometimes use the Cardinal to line it with a Bishop. Your King has space to run and he needs it. I'm fairly sure there are no quick checkmates in this game as there are in the others.
Fencer has added a link in the rules page to the inventor's page.

Grand is an enjoyable game, yes. Nice 10x10, active, even-handed. I wish Masters had to qualify on 10x10 boards. Let the 8x8 be for us novices, a "training ground", so said; and when the players reach master level, let the tournaments be played on a 10x10. NOW let's see how the draw offers fall!

Actually a very good idea, although giving up the crutch of 20-30 move opening preparation backed by computers would be difficult for many. Even if Grandmasters were willing to throw away all that tradition you would probably still need a sponsor like Jaap van Oosterman (sp?), the guy who sponsors the Melody Amber rapid chess and blindfold tournament, to finance a big board experiment like that. Do we have anybody really, really, really rich out there who would like to sponsor a chess variant tournament?

panzerschiff: . . . or a few misfit players. ;)

HalfPawn: I believe Embassy came first (or at least I know for sure the Lasker and Capablanca versions came first). If you look at the patent for Gothic Chess (check the US Patent office website) Gothic chess references several other chess variants as well as their inventors . . . then you'll know just exactly where Gothic came from . . . very interesting reading but it's been awhile since I read it.

HalfPawn: If you set up the Grand Chess pieces and then move the Rooks up on square each, the set up is the same as Embassy Chess. The game itself was made up out of Bird's Chess. Bird's Chess is on the Gothic Chess site along with Capablanca Chess. Bird made up his version in or around 1874. Capablanca in 1920's. Grand Chess is 1972. I think Gothic is from the late 90's. I'm not sure when the patent was granted but I think 2002. Embassy Chess in 2004 no patent. It gets its name from Modern Bird's Chess. MBC. I tried to get Fencer to add that to the rules section but aside from adding Kevin's name he left the little history blurb out of it. I've never seen a Lasker version of this kind of Chess. How's it go?

Walter Montego: All of these games are predated by Carrera's Chess which is over 300 years old. If you go to the Chess variants website it has a large page devoted to Capablanca Chess. He apparently used different sized boards and names for the pieces at different times. They show some of his versions and have links to the other games on that page too.
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/capablanca.html

I see where the Lasker comes into it from reading the page. So you won't have to answer my question. Thank you.

"Caissas Traumland" http://brainking.com/de/ShowFellowship?fid=303
We are looking for a teamcompetition with another fellowship in januschess,two games each player and four days timecontrol. If you have a team with at least four players and an bkr-average above 1500 please send me an pm in the next days .Thanks.

I guess I should've been playing this variant since it came to the site!

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1427042

ColonelCrockett: Not hard to forget about GC when you have MBC ;)

WhiteTower: I can't say I've "forgotten" I just found another interesting variant. :)

ColonelCrockett: Nobody can really forget GC but with MBC around, who needs GC anyway? ;)

WhiteTower:.
.
.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

WhiteTower: What's GC?

Pedro Martínez: Exactly ;)

ColonelCrockett: It is a good game. :) I'm glad it's here.

Pedro Martínez: he means Gothic Chess, Pedro.

Everyone: I don't want to get on a Gothic Chess discussion again. I wasn't trying to bring up the topic.

ColonelCrockett: What's Gothic Chess?

Pedro Martínez: the game you were rated 1900+ at, lol.

ColonelCrockett: It's hard not to. It is a part of the header of this board and the story of it is a big part of the reason that Capablanca Random Chess, Embassy Chess, and Grand Chess are on this site. Though I can see a reason to avoid it from the trouble such discussions caused in the past. It is still a good game, though I'm liking to play the other games more each day. I also have personal reasons not to play it.

HalfPawn: Looks like Pedro was rated 1783 at Gothic Chess.

Yeah, so....?

No, i think he was 1900 according to Brainking rating system. The page you gave shows the ratings according to another system.....

Anybody out there ever try Carrera's original version of this type of variant? The arrangement with the minor pieces closer to the center always seems a little more logical and Janus chess does take that approach. For what it is worth ancient and medieval commanders tended to put there cavalry on the flank rather than in the middle of the army and classical chess reflects this. Variants with the R+N piece might also benefit from such an arrangement. Maybe Carrera's version might be another option to test on BrainKing?

HalfPawn: Those ratings are not the official rankings from this site. They may be valid on the GC site but here we have BKR on Brainking.

HalfPawn: and you have to admit those ratings look more accurate

LOOK MORE ACCURATE???????????????????
Why oh why?
Can you give one or more reasons about the "LOOK"....?

I know from a statistical point of view that the Glicko2 system i suppose it is used on the ratings you gave, is better than the Brainking's, but the word "LOOK" you used means what looks better to us.
And the opinion of any person can't be by any means a criterion of which list is more accurate!!!!

HalfPawn: SmirfEngine was rated 2253, and GrimReaper was rated 2241!

Well indeed, not to be the number one might be something not easy to bear. But as SMIRF already has experienced, there also is a life beyond being the leader of the pack, even without reinventing a rating scheme to one's taste.

Reinhard.

HalfPawn: So you are saying 32 wins and 5 losses should be rated higher than someone with 161 wins and 0 losses?

It depends on the definition of the rating system and the ratings the opponents had. Period!
So yes it is possible and very logical that someone with even 876 wins and no loses can have lower rating than someone with 18 wins and 5 loses....

Also we have 2 facts here:
Smirf Engine was rated higher than GrimReaper with the Brainking formula while with the formula it is used on the page you gave, it is rated lower....
This is indisputable!


If that is math that makes sense, no wonder Smirfengine lost to ChessV!

This is completely irrelevant as far as i can see.....!


Prove to me the BK system make sense based on what I have just shown you.

I highly disagree with how the Brainking system works, but that doesn't mean your use of the word "LOOK" was correct.... You've put the subjective factor of a human's opinion/instinct about if a list makes more sense than another, and that is what i criticize here.....

HalfPawn: No, that is not what I said. And I also did not mention the argument, that a want-to-be-no-1 has to win against the de-facto-no-1.

Moreover, what the design of a ranking has to do with ChessV is not clear to me. ChessV two times was afraid to continue a match against my SMIRF engine in a world tournament by blocking the reentering of broken matches, which could not be continued otherwise. That makes me leave that tournament being unwilling to participate in such kindergarden quarrels.

P.S.: Anyone, who is interested in this, could download ChessV and SMIRF (beta) from http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html and start to gather own experiences in having one play the other (but be aware to use a non expired testing key set, which is bundled with SMIRF beta).

GOD: .
.
.
My opinion or yours or Fencer's or Reinhards or anyone else's doesn't matter. It's the way the ratings are calculated and the opinion of the numbers that decide!
You or i may think that we deserve a better ranking but the numbers state otherwise. That's the point!

The way Fencer has defined the formula for the ratings, Smirf was first!
I, you, he, she, were in X,T,U,I place! That's what the numbers said! On this site.
If someone doesn't agree with that then he should complain! If his complaints don't have a result then he should stop complaining and accept it or stop playing here.....Simple!

HalfPawn: gameid=444 Well, SMIRF has lost a game in 109 moves. So what?

GOD: Well if this just a question with NO CONNECTION of which should be first in the rating lists, then my anwer is this:
Sorry but i can't answer this question since i haven't examined ALL the Gothic Chess games played on Brainking.....
Tell me if you want to answer your question for the games i have seen only....

HalfPawn: Grim Reaper/Gothic Inventor/Ed Trice was the strongest, but he cheated. He used software in every game without admitting it. According to the rules here, that is cheating. It's pretty unsportsmanlike too, but that's another subject. Anyway, the guy's gone. Can we move on? Gothic Chess is dead here.

Thad:
1st: How do you know he was the strongest? Did you look at ALL the games of ALL players that played this game....?
2nd: How do you know he has cheated? Did you see that with your eyes or do you have any other kind of definite proof.....?

Pythagoras: two very good questions.

Pythagoras: Well, I don't know for sure that he was the strongest, but he was rated first using both rankings and he was undefeated. Draw your own conclusions. Frankly, I'd gladly state that anyone else was stronger. State your case. ;-)

I know he cheated becasue he told me in a message in a game we played in a BK tournament.

Thad: Smirf was the top rated when Gothic Chess games disappeared from this site and not Grim Reaper. That of course to answer your false statement that he was rated first here. But that (that Smirf was first) doesn't mean Smirf is the strongest Gothic Chess player.

The second statement you said is quite interesting.....But i can't comment it since Grim Reaper can't answer....

Thad: Ed Trice is a very strong player, I am sure. And I never would make an attempt to challenge him playing myself, because I would not have any chance.

I never have hidden the fact, that I use a (self written) program to improve it by playing some games here. Moreover I renamed my membership to underline that fact, and hope to have played games only when being invited to.

So it will be no problem for me, when SMIRF loses a game. The reasons for being not always successful are differing, and mostly changed beta versions are involved to gather appropriate experiences. Thus there is no need at all for SMIRF to become a number one here, whereas I am of course happy to succed with it from time to time.

But other players feel uncomfortable when not being top, thus searching reasons for to prove being misplaced or misestimated. But the solution to climb any ladder successfully is simple: try and improve and try, and you will find your place in every ranking system.

Thad: It is well known that to "weed-out" computer cheaters you decrease time limits ('blitz') because the would-be cheater can't input data into his program fast enough to make much difference. Ed is the champion at blitz Gothic and that makes any thought that he might cheat moot in my opinion. As to your question as to "who is the best" I really can't answer . . . I can only tell you who isn't the best . . . me . . . that's the extent of my knowledge (and it is true strength to "know thyself") you too can only know your personal limits . . . any other attempt to calculate fails because nobody ever set out to play everyone who played the game . . . that would be the only true decision maker.