Starts January 12th. Two games each.

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=12909&trnst=0

nabla: HEre's a game of Janus Chess that might have something for your friend.
http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1064884&i=1

The Knights were jumping around for awhile. Then he offered a Bishop on move 21. I didn't take the Bishop on move 21 and opted for the troublesome Pawn. Then the pins started happening, along with threats real or imagined. I never did move the one Bishop and when he took it later in the game I didn't do much about it as the Bishop wasn't needed after that. It had guarded a lot of threats most of the game without ever having been moved. Towards the end he gave up his Janus to stay in the game. I did the same some moves later as he had one last checkmate to get me with if I didn't.

Looking back through the moves and trying to remember why I moved as I did, doesn't seem the same as when I was actually playing the game. If the game is of interest to you or your freind, I can go back through it with more time and perhaps see or remember what was going on.

I know there were threats in that game that made some of the moves look strange at the time they were played. Also, we aren't the strongest Janus Chess players, so it's pretty easy to miss an apparent good move when something complicated and speculative might work. :)

SMIRF Engine: I don't know about the current version of SMIRF, but I remember it starting the games differently when playing it in Janus Chess. And defending differently too. That doesn't prove anything though. What move it selects could be very dependent on how long it searches to make the move, even the very first move of the game. This being so, it could make a different move if he sets it to think 1 hour before moving as compared to one minute or one day. And then there's upgrades. And what happens when the machine view two or more moves as equally best moves for it. It has to pick one of them. Perhaps it has a random factor if its not memorizing its played games. Remember that to his program the start of the game is the same as 20 moves later, it just wings every move.

ColonelCrockett: Why would it make a difference if it made a different move or not? If it always made the same opening move as White it could be that it thinks that is the best move. If it makes different moves on occasion, then I would like to know why it would.

Pythagoras: Would you please use commas to seperate the thousands? This ain't French you're typing in.

Pythagoras: Why do say Reinhard is correct and then agree with me and say computers are playing better or will be playing better than humans? The computers will have all the plans inside them for their own use. Whether or not humans are able to use what computers will learn about FRC is besides the point. The computer will have what it knows to play, and it doesn't have to show anybody what it knows. A computer can run 24 hours a day studying each of the 960 positions and just keep getting more and more prepared for the next upcoming tournament. Someone could have more than one computer to speed the process along too. I agree with you that there's no way humans will be able to have all that knowledge written out like all the books are written on regular Chess. Fischer Random Chess is something that tournaments between humans should use. It'd be very hard for a human to prepare for all 960 openings aside from using general plans, like developing pieces and not leaving things for the taking. The players would be winging it from the start.

WhiteTower: One way in linear and the other is exponential. From what I've seen of the advance of computers, I'm siding with exponential growth. That's how it's been since the sixties.

SMIRF Engine: I find these assertions of it taking lots of years ridiculous! FRC has 960 different opening positions, right? Regular Chess has 1. Three orders of magnitude. I fail to see why a computer couldn't just study all 960 different openings and get prepared for all of them. Is that hard to imagine? When the gigs become teras and when understanding how to program these types of games becomes better and more efficiently improved, these games will be just as well mastered as regular Chess is nowadays. It should certainly happen within ten years at the lastest.

And I'm just talking about the brute force methods. They start making the computer work parallelly or even emulate how people think and add brute force to it and it could be done even faster.

SMIRF Engine: Fencer says he's going to add Embassy Chess. Will you add it to SMIRF without having to play it mirrored imaged because of the castling difference?

SMIRF Engine: Just let me know when the finished version is ready to go, or tell me how I can use the old version like I used to be able to.

Hey, did that computer Chess 8 X 10 tournament ever happen? How'd SMIRF do?

SMIRF Engine: Frustration? You betcha! It would appear that I'm not the only one either. That's why I stopped playing it. It either played poorly or it kept asking me for keys after I downloaded the newer version. It is no longer fun to play even though it won every game before and now loses every game.

SMIRF Engine: OK, I get the feeling that when I was playing against SMIRF on this site I was one of these beta testers, eh?

SMIRF Engine: Well, why didn't you say so? How much does it cost? I can send you the money if I think it's resonable.

jolat: Just hearing you describe that is not how I remember SMIRF playing. I've played Sumerian/SMIRF engine around 25 games on this site. At first I held my own and would win a game on occasion, but it has won about 15 in a row as Richard has improved it. When he made the updated version for home use I figured I'd get that if only because it had new features for displaying the moves and set ups and stuff. Had I known it would not play good any more and make it so I couldn't play the old program I would not have ever downloaded it. At least I have good opponents on this site to play against and Richard still will have his SMIRF play me on occasion. He tried to explain to me what to do, but I'm not much for messing with the computer and have just decided to not ever play it again until I hear it plays or works like it used to. By the way, we play Janus Chess when I play against the SMIRF. He has made the program play a few Chess games besides Janus Chess.

jolat: I used to have the old beta SMIRF program. I never once beat it. Then he updated the program and something happened when I played it, it moved fast and made bad moves. It also kept asking me for keys and things that the older version never asked for. Unfortunately, the new version took over the old one and I can't run the old one any more. So I stopped playing against the SMIRF.

pierot: You might try Grand Chess or Janus Chess. They are similiar games, though have major differences. Grand Chess uses the same pieces as Gothic Chess, but has a larger board and mobile Rooks from the beginning. Pawn promotion is different and there's no castling. Janus Chess has a piece called the Janus which identical to the Archbishop of Gothic Chess. Each player gets two Januses and is played on an 10 X 8 like Gothic Chess. There isn't ay piece like the Chancellor in Janus Chess.

I asked Fencer if he would add Embassy Chess. He said he would look into it. It is almost the same game as Gothic Chess though it is not patented. The King and Chancellors are switched in starting position. The other change is the Chancellor is named Marshall and the Archbishop is the Cardinal. Castling works the same with the King moving three squares towards the Rook. So this will have a slight difference in end position from the Gothic Chess set up since the King starts one square to the side as compared to Gothic Chess. The game was created to fix the flaws of Bird's and Capablanca's set ups using the same pieces as was Gothic Chess.

Statistics
White won 1048 (48.92 %)
Black won 1035 (48.31 %)
------Draws 59 (2.75 %)

This supports, but doesn't prove, my belief that the game is equal for either side. There's always play two games with each player having each color to level it out too. Even in single game matches the results on this site look pretty even to me.

ColonelCrockett: Subtlety is something that I'm not often accused of, that's for sure.

redsales: Considering that with the exception of Dark Chess you've handily defeated me in every game we've played, I'm kind of curious as to when I might have said as much about your poor position during a game. As for Dark Chess, I rarely talk about an opponent's position during a game as it might tip him off as to where my pieces are or what my plans are. About the only time in Dark Chess that I might even say something would be after a move is made and it is obvious to both players that the game is about to end. I generally will type to my opponent during a game if said opponent types back and we have a conversation going. Backgammon in a lot of ways seems to be a game more conductive to conversation while its going on, but I'll chat in any game. I do agree with you about the playing with someone new, and will normally not comment on a Chess type game while it is progress unless my opponent initiates it or something extraordinary has happened during the game.

tedbarber: You'll be sorely missed. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Whatever the deal is between them, I have asked to get a game added that is almost identical to Gothic Chess. It's called Embassy Chess. The only difference of the two games is the starting position of the Chancellors and Kings and names of the Chancellor and Archbishop, which are Marshall and Cardinal as in Grand Chess. Would you stay to play that game if the Gothic Chess is eliminated? Or even play it if Gothic Chess by some chance stays on the site? In the meantime, you ought to try Grand Chess. It is very similair to both games. The pieces are identical, but the Rooks start out with lots more mobility. From the few games of Grand Chess that I've started it seems to be a fast paced game with lots of traps and trouble from the very beginning of the game.

I have seven games in the "Waiting games" section if anyone would like to play a game or two. 2 or 3 day time limit with vacations and weekends still going.

AbigailII: Well said. I pointed out some of these things to him in a private message.
The systems, both Metric and Standard, aren't illogical, they are arbitrary. Whether or not they are designed logically is a whole different debate.

Caissus: I went to the German board. Unfortunately for me it's all in German and I could only make out about 5% of the words. I'll just have to wait until you post something in this part of the discussion board as I don't know German. I suppose I'll gradually learn it if I read the board from time to time. I went to your Janus Chess link. From the positioning and use of buttons and windows I gathered Weiter means "Enter". I hit that button, but it was all in German when I got inside. Is there an English version of this site? I really like Janus Chess and would like to try playing it live someday.

Congratulations to Matarilevich in winning the tournament. Won every game in taking it too. Yes, he's the player that knocked me out of the Dark Chess Third Quarter 2004 tournament. He is having a rougher time in round two of that tournament, but he blazed the Gothic Chess tournament.

Thad: Why do you view the Bishop being able to attack as it does in Gothic Chess as a flaw? All the opponents Pawns are guarded at the start, so what does it matter? Moving that Pawn out of the way may not be a good move either even if it does free up the Bishop. Both players have this threat available to them, so it's equal. Yes, White can do it first, but he's not able to force the issue without getting some other pieces over there to help out. In the meantime Black can move a Pawn to block the Bishop, or put his Knight on the diagonal. If you move your Chancellor on the first turn you attack the other side of the board too. Which will still be true on a 10 X 10 board.

I haven't played Gothic Chess since December, and now that the tournament round finally got going again I'm remembering how the game goes. Janus Chess is the 8 X 10 variant I've been playing recently and though it has a lot in common with Gothic Chess, it's a whole different game. Janus Chess does have the King and Queen side by side and it got me thinking about Bird's Chess and variants. This is why I posted my comment about having the King and Queen together. I think it'd be a very good way to play and eliminates the two things I view as flaws to the other three versions. I hadn't even considered the Bishops being able to come out as you say as a problem. I think of that as a benefit for Bishops and another reason that I'd rather have a Bishop than a Knight on the 8 X 10 board when all things are equal.

A 10 X 10 board with the pieces set up on the back two rows, seems a little too open at the start for me and it might take a few more moves to make the game intersting. Especially them slow walking Pawns. Grand Chess uses a 10 X 10 board, but the majority of the pieces are on the second and third rows. Just the Rooks are in the back rows. That game sure looks like it'd be fun to play. I'd like to give it a try.

The one thing that Henry Bird and Jose Capablanca did when they made up their games was keep the King and Queen together. This isn't the case in Gothic Chess and I view it as a flaw. Ed says he put the pieces as he did so all the Pawns are guarded at the start of the game and certain Chess like formations can be played in the game. I think if the King and Chancellor's positions were switched, the game would be the best possible set up of all these variants. With the Kings on the e squares and the Chancellors on the f squares all the Pawns would be guarded at the start. The board would be even more Chesslike as the left five files and the three right files from White's view would appear as they do in regular Chess. About the only difference would be that castling would be long to the reverse side. This should make possible other similiar openings besides the Indian one. Center Counter, Sicilian Defense, and French Defense type starts. Plus the Chancellor and Archbishop's Knight part of their moves wouldn't step on each other coming off the back row as they do in Gothic Chess.

I think this is an improvement on all three variants. I wish there was a way to set up the pieces for the board as the players would like to have them, instead being forced to use whatever set up is imposed. Screen Chess isn't what I mean. Kind of like the Fischer Random Chess where everyone gets the same set up. It'd be nice to be able start a tournament on the 8 X 10 board with what ever configuration the tournament organizer deemed for his tournament. Ed gets his game played, why can't I get mine? I'll try a feature request on the board for it.

Nasmichael: I had forgotten about the "Shooting Fish in a Barrel". It started July 20th? Many moons ago. It loks like 6 of us wouldn't be elgible to play because our ratings are outside the range now. I thought I was out of the tournament and hadn't given it much thought, but after seeing your post I went to the tournament chart to see who'd won. There's one game left running. It seems to me that it doesn't matter who wins this game, the winners of the section will be the same. I remember posting on the Feature Request discussion board about moving a tournament wqhen this happens. Quite a few other people posting opinions on it too. IN any case, it would appear that I will be making it to the next round when that last game is finally finished. This is assuming that I under the S-B thingy well enough to know that a three way tie will make all three people advance if each of them beat one of the other's opponent but lost to the other opponent, as is the case here. I'll try to remberhow to move the pieces in Gothic Chess if I do in fact make the next round. :)

Thank you for posting the tournaments. I hope this is one of them stories that you were looking for. I believe the game with me and Mely in that tournament was the best game of Gothic Chess that I've ever played and it was his first loss. I haven't done much since.

I'm not sure who she is, but somehow the Mode was changed without me doing it. Apparently she is able to do that without even consulting me. I'm not happy about this seeing how I've been online all this time and she could have sent me a message or two about her concerns. This board is nothing like it was last year and she is overreacting. I'm going to ban her from this board until I get some answer from her. As I was typing a long post concerning doing this very thing, I will leave what she has done in place for the time being. If she has the power to change the Mode, she might also have the power to unban herself and/or even remove me as moderator. Depending on her replies to me or what action she might take, I'll be talking to Fencer about the whole subject. I'm sure he didn't have someone like her abusing whatever power he has given her without even the courtesy of a note to the people involved.

Andromedical: Ah, sure, this comes as a surprise. I'll remove you right after I post this reply. I think you've done very well as moderator and will be missed. Are you sure you won't reconsider? Any reason for resigning, or you just looking for other things to do?

EdTrice: I removed the ban on you Ed.
danoschek: I went to the link, but saw no mention of Gothic Chess. I did see Kasparov's name, but it was in relation to a regular Chess tournament. Did I overlook something? Does the USCF have Chess variants as a part of it? Seems like some top rated Chess players have played Janus Chess. I'd think a Chess federation would be interested in keeping up on that. Perhaps you could show me where to look in their site?

Welcome back Ed.

mahavrilla: Janus Chess has one very good thing going for it. Ed Trice didn't patent it! The games themselves are very similar. I started playing Gothic Chess first, and probably would not even have played Janus Chess had it not been for the events that led to me becoming moderator of the Gothic Chess discussion board or things that Ed Trice did after my installment as moderator of said board. Since then, I've learned to play Janus Chess, and for some reason the game is lots harder for me to play well as compared to Gothic Chess. I'm not sure why this is. Ed is very good at both games, ... mod edit ....

As far as having an answer to your post. The obvious major difference is having two Januses compared to a Janus/Archbishop and a Knight+Rook/Chancellor. The two Januses can work together in ways that can only happen because there's two of them. Kind of like the Rooks in regular Chess. The Bishops in regular Chess can be powerful, but they can never guard each other. The Knights can guard each other, but as soon as one moves that is no longer true. The Januses do both things, as do the Rooks. Gothic Chess's Archbishop and Chancellor do it on occasion, so it's hard for me to say for sure. It just seems like the Januses move together better. On paper the Gothic set is stronger, but that doesn't mean it's a better version, does it? As for excitement while playing the games themselves, that's a very subjective thing and I think the games are equal in that respect. You didn't ask about unpredictability. Is that part of the excitement factor for you?

WhiteTower: It couldn't hurt to have the option to have it either way before the series of games in a match starts. I think that's all he was asking for. Perhaps you should try the "Feature Request" discussion board, ted. See if Fencer will have a listen to you.

Walter Montego: Or buy two sets and have lots of extra pieces to play the various games.

mahavrilla: You can get a Grand Chess set and use it for Janus Chess, though you might ask them to send you two extra Cardinals with your order. You'll have to get your own 10 X 8 or cover two rows of their 10 X 10 board. This is something I'm thinking of doing myself. Grand Chess sounds like it'd be a fun game to play too. They used to have a site for it. The game was made up in the 1970's. Perhaps a browse of the Chess Variants page is in order, eh? They used to have the link to the creator's site and his ordering information with pictures of some nice looking sets. They might be able to help you out for the 8 X 10 board, too. Grand Chess uses the same exact pieces as Gothic Chess and the design of the pieces themselves is one I like. They use the names Cardinal and Marshall for the Archbishop and Chancellor. I like how they incorporated the Knights into the pieces and it makes them easy to tell apart and also remember how they move. Their design for the Cardinal would make a good looking piece for the Januses, but they'd need to supply you with one extra of each color to play Janus Chess with their set.

I'm quite free and liberal with whatever anyone wants to say about any subject on this discussion board whether or not the post is on subject or topic, but please try and succeed in avoiding profanites in your posts. I won't ban or hide you for using cuss words unless it is continuous and flagrant, but I will send you a message when I notice it or am sent a message that you've used them, or I'll modify your post and put an asterisk to change the word without changing your post too much. I don't want to do that, nor do I feel I should need too. Hey, I can cuss and swear with the best of them, but I refrain from doing so. Say what you want, be nasty if you desire, but do not use any of the FCC prohibited swear words on this open to the public discussion board. *hit is one of them. You all probably know the other six. If in doubt, be creative and use a different phrase or word. Civility won't kill you, and believe it or not, nice words can be quite devastating at times.

Pedro Martínez: Fair enough. Since I've banned him from this discussion board, he'll have to use the private message system to get the information to one of us, or the someone that's been tipping him off from his fellowships about the carrying-ons of this board can get the information from him and post it here.

I think your option 1) makes the most sense. If option 2) was the case, he'd surely whip it out for Fencer to see and back up his claims upon this site.
There might be another explanation to fit this scenario too, so I shall just wait until I see for myself whom to believe. If it is your option 2) or another explanation I would like you to modify your post and make mention of the fact that you are wrong about option 1).

Pedro Martínez: What does all that mean? Is there no patent for Gothic Chess in Europe? Is it because fees weren't paid, or because it was denied? Or some other reason? Does that mean a European company can market the game in Europe without paying licensing fees to Ed?

Application withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn
Communication, that the application is deemed to be withdrawn
date dispatch/legal effect date 26-06-2003/05-03-2003 [2003/49]
Reason A.94(3)

Does anyone know what reason A.94(3) is? I also searched through the event history link and found a lot of deletions and expiration messages. It would appear that the application was denied or withdrawn in 2003.

I disagree. I think it's too much when you consider all the strings attached to it.

Someday I'll understand the patent business or this will be resolved in a way that I understand. I still do not see how a game that is over one hundred years old can be patented. Changing the starting places of three pieces and leaving all the rules the same is certainly no new game as far as I can see. It be like switching the Knights and Bishops in regular Chess and patenting that version of Chess.

If you're right redsales about just changing the rules or renaming the game, Fencer could just start all games as Bird's Chess and then have forced moves similar to how some Checker tournaments are done until the set looks like Gothic Chess and then allow the players to move as they wish. I believe I posted something like this idea a few months back. Depending on where the Chancellor/Marshall and Archbishop/Cardinal are initially set up in Bird's Chess you could arrive at the Gothic Chess set up in five to seven moves if I remember right. IF the players wanted to play the original Bird's Chess they could just start the game without the inforced moves.

Pedro Martínez: He didn't delete them this time. I've banned and hid him. I'm not going to let what happened the last time he started this stuff happen again. He said he would leave this site, and that hasn't happened. He said he would never post to this board as long as I remained moderator, and as you can see he is posting here. He has repeatedly deleted or altered his posts in such a way that it makes a mishmash of other people's posts that had replied and even has the gall to say that you did it to your post just now! And let us not forget the rumors and innuendo started with accussation of Stevie sending it back on January 23rd. I don't like that being done, and I am in a position to do something about it. Fencer doesn't appear happy with Ed either and I don't want to be in middle of them when it comes to a head. The patent business has never been resolved to my satisfaction and that's just the way it is. I did go to Ed's posts on the Chess Variant's page and he was very even handed and informative in his recent posts there. Why he carries on the way he does here is beyond me. As for your Pond bets, made or not made through his advice, it seems like we should be talking about that on the "Run Around the Pond" discussion board. I did like the conversation there about it, unfortunately the moderators there tired of it and it forced a group Pond players to split off and form their own fellowship to have different moderators and culture of posting. Which is what Ed did in this discussion board too. I wonder why he came back here? Perhaps his fellowships aren't working out as he planned?
In any case, that's how it is right now, and I'll wait for awhile to see what happens next. The way this sites' boards and oversight is done now has changed from when I become moderator here, plus March is only a few weeks away and I have the feeling that things will be lots different here when April rolls around.

I am unhiding Ed with this modification, but the ban will stand. Let his posts speak for themselves. Least ways, those that remain.

WhiteTower: Unlike here, where it's weathered just about everything thrown at it and keeps on ticking. :) I imagine the game will be here in its present form, one way or the other. Seems to have a lot of lives.
What is cowplay, and what happened to the game there?

Thad: I don't see that as much of a problem. It's caused from the board being rectangular instead of square. In Janus Chess the Bishops can do that too, though it's the Rook Pawns that they attack without moving and the diagonal isn't good as the one in Gothic Chess. Plus moving them Pawn isn't always a good thing to do early, especially moving them both. Try a few games and see.

Thad: I'm not sure what flaw it is that you're talking about. Do you mean a particular game that you're playing or Gothic Chess in general? In Janus Chess to Pawns are unguarded at the start of the game, but it's not a flaw at all. Janus Chess is a tough challenging game. Very simular to Gothic Chess. You get two Januses and the set up is like regular Chess. A Janus is the same piece as the Archbishop. Having two of them makes for trouble. They work together in ways that a Chancellor and Archbishop cannot. For some reason, it's taking me a long time to get better at Janus Chess than Gothic Chess, though that might be because I've played and lost a lot of games to Sumerian's Smirf program. I have a tough end game going with it right now. I'm learning. It's Bishop, Rook, and Pawns against Janus and Pawns.

Thad: In that case Thad, may I invite you to a couple of games of Janus Chess? :)

Stormerne: You left out a word in your quote of mine. "Well"
I said it's a lot harder to play this game well compared to regular Chess. I didn't mean to imply that it is any harder to learn how to play it. That's two different things. As an example, tic tac toe is only slightly easier to learn than 5 in line, but which game is harder to get good at?
I also know of games that are hard to learn, but are relatively easy to get good at. Cribbage comes to mind.

Stormerne: I hadn't given it much thought. This Gothic Chess has less draws I'd be willing to bet. And I'm sure it's because there's more power on the board, but the King is the same piece as in regular Chess. You also have to take into consideration that not very many people play this game, nor are there hundreds of years of study of it even though it's been around for over a hundred. Not quite set up as this, but the same pieces and rules. It's just nobody much played Bird's Chess, nor fifty years later did they played Capablnca's Chess. Now there's Gothic Chess, and it is more widely played of the three, but still it quite small compared to regular Chess. If the patent holder is right and Gothic Chess does become the mainstream version of Chess in a few years, all those millions of players will produce lots of good players and I imagine the percentage of draws will go up. It's a lot harder for people to play this game well compared to regular Chess. I'm sure that lowers the amount of draws too. One thing that is changing all Chess type games is computers. I'm sure if Gothic Chess does get popular with the masses, more computer time will be put into the study of it. With computers getting more powerful everyday, they'll catch up to this game a lot faster than it took them to almost master regular Chess.

Caissus: He's blurry, all right! He snuck out of the yard last night and didn't come home until feeding time this morning. Bad boy! :)
Maybe it's those Dalmation spots on him that makes him look that way.

Chessmaster1000: If we could pick the icons, then you could keep using it and I could switch. The best of both worlds, eh?

Caissus: That's it Caissus. I think both look a lot better than what we have now. The Cardinal is exactly the piece itself. Do you think they'd be easy to tell apart from the Knights on the same board? If so, are there others that feel as I do about the doglike thing and can we get fencer to change the symbol? If it's just me, it probably not worth the trouble. Or maybe it can be made so that the user picks the style of symbol on his page as he does with the rest of the Chess board set up?

I am wondering if we could have it changed to either look like the Archbishop on Gothic Chess or Sumerian's double sword icon on his site? The strange smirking doglike figure just doesn't jibe with how I think of the piece. If those icons aren't acceptable, how about a horse's head with a bishop's mitre on it. Kind of like how that Janus Chess site of Caissus has the piece for the set itself. Or how does Grand Chess represent the Cardinal in that game. Perhaps someone with a Grand Chess set could photograph the piece on profile and we could use it for the icon. Maybe someone could come up with a good icon? Who made the one we have now? Who, who, let the dogs out? :)