 |
|
 Chess variants (10x8)Sam has closed his piano and gone to bed ... now we can talk about the real stuff of life ... love, liberty and games such as Janus, Capablanca Random, Embassy Chess & the odd mention of other 10x8 variants is welcome too For posting: - invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu or for particular games: Janus; Capablanca Random; or Embassy) - information about upcoming tournaments - disussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted while that particular game is in progress) - links to interesting related sites (non-promotional) You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
<< < 1 2 > >> 16. March 2007, 08:34:12 Subject: Re: WhisperzQ: C'mon, this board was dead before this exchange :) 26. March 2006, 18:50:16 Subject: Re: Fwiffo: There is no such board in BrainKing. The current regime doesn't like retrograding :) 10. March 2006, 19:58:29 Subject: Re: JinkyOng: I'd visit the ranking pages for FRC if I were you! 28. February 2006, 22:29:40 Subject: Re: yipee! ColonelCrockett: Nobody can really forget GC but with MBC around, who needs GC anyway? ;) 28. February 2006, 12:20:39 Subject: Re: yipee! ColonelCrockett: Not hard to forget about GC when you have MBC ;) 20. February 2006, 05:33:50 Subject: Re: HalfPawn: Now why would anyone want to know that? Since the answer is easily "googleable", isn't Embassy well-supported and playable here as it is? 30. January 2006, 21:06:16 Subject: Re: tedbarber:
- What is the exact flaw in the placement of major pieces in Embassy Chess? - Capablanca Chess is certainly inferior to CRC, as it leaves unprotetcted pieces at startup. However, CRC cannot be generally compared with Capablanca or other 8x10 chess variants, as it was created for a very specific reason: avoiding drawn games through randomization of the initial position (Reinhard, please correct me if I'm wrong) 30. December 2005, 12:08:33 Subject: Re: SMIRF left the GC championship Fencer: Please let us know if you intend to publish any of it or a summary at least :) 21. December 2005, 07:47:31 Subject: Re: The 2005 Gothic Chess Computer World Championship ChessCarpenter: ... and they defeated each other as BLACK! Let's see if this trend goes on. 10. November 2005, 06:18:16 Subject: Re: computers + openings SMIRF Engine: Won't it be eventually implemented, after a few thousand games, and only for reasons of avoiding clearly "losing" opening moves? Unless ALL opening moves have no clear losing potential whatsoever :) 9. November 2005, 16:22:28 Subject: Re: computers + openings SMIRF Engine: Not even "preferred" opening moves for the first couple of plies? ;) 9. November 2005, 06:21:18 Subject: Re: Walter Montego: In Greece we use periods as thousand separators and commas as decimal points. Is it that important? :) 8. November 2005, 22:58:12 Subject: Re: Pythagoras: Maybe the reason is the "complete information" attribute that Backgammon carries? (as discussed in the Backgammon board) 8. November 2005, 18:26:44 Subject: Re: From relatively unknown to known Walter Montego: Therefore:
- Human chess should be "restricted" to FRC/CRC - Computer chess should be "restricted" to Chess/Gothic Chess :) Wouldn't that be sweet?... 8. November 2005, 18:02:18 Subject: Re: From relatively unknown to known ColonelCrockett: Sorry for butting in, but if Pythagoras (formerly known as ChessMaster1000) who has defeated Gothic Vortex and other engines in the recent past, says that it will happen, I'm pretty sure he wasn't shooting his own foot ;) But myself, I keep my reservations about this - so it's up to Pythagoras to answer you obviously! 8. November 2005, 16:30:14 Subject: Re: From relatively unknown to known Walter Montego: Exactly my line of thought as well. I did think that Reinhard was being a bit too "mathematical" with his assertions, without applying some further factors in the process :) 8. November 2005, 12:27:27 Subject: Re: From relatively unknown to known SMIRF Engine: But what if the computing power available today and later will bring the same faults to them that standard chess now has? Or is that a very distant future? :) 6. November 2005, 15:04:37 Subject: Re: WhisperQ: The link is slightly screwed :) 6. November 2005, 08:23:20 Subject: Re: redsales: Right on.
Anyway, the only way we can get as close as possible to any comparison between them is to make them play each other according to software like ChessMasterSomeThousand, where, I think, chess personalities are programmed... I know, it's not anything conclusive, but I'd like to know what happens :) 11. October 2005, 12:12:40 Subject: Re: Protected Pawns in CRC SMIRF Engine: Bug reporters, start your keyboards! 2. October 2005, 01:26:02 Subject: Re: MBC SMIRF Engine: Sorry to butt in, but if your program is even half well-structured, no new code introduction should affect any core functionality... or your core needs redesigning! :) 22. September 2005, 08:53:15 Subject: Re: CardinalFlight: That would be LAW of great numbers, sorry :) 22. September 2005, 08:52:50 Subject: Re: CardinalFlight: I would say the percentage of DRAWS is unusually low :) But give it a few more millions of games and the percentages will be closer - hail to the low of great numbers! 14. September 2005, 22:28:38 Subject: Re: pawnme: Or, even more directly, at:
www.GothicChessLive.com 14. September 2005, 21:42:21 Subject: Re: naughtypawn: After successful lobbying (not really!) it does no longer refer to a movie title but to a Cuban chess player (except for the rest of it, which, I suppose, was the trade-off, thanks to Grim Reaper!) 14. September 2005, 21:28:16 Subject: Re: naughtypawn: Well, the Chess Variants (10x8) headline is now real-world-compliant :) 14. September 2005, 09:18:09 OK, if you gonna mess up Capablanca, whah not turn da others into Janes Chess and Gotham Chess as well?
Let's get serious, it's Capablanca Random Chess, there's no S in Capablanca. 14. September 2005, 00:39:02 Subject: Re: Grim Reaper: And actually, you invented Gotham Chess, right? :) 13. September 2005, 22:08:52 Subject: Re: Moderators...... Pythagoras: Well spotted! 2. September 2005, 13:01:21 Subject: Re: Grim Reaper: Yes, maybe in CowPlay you were right, but you see, in both cases, the owner of the site removed it because you somehow leveraged them to do so, not because they didn't like Gothic Chess or something... Whatever the reason in each case, you don't make friends like that... Surely there could be a compromise somehow... 2. September 2005, 06:03:25 Subject: Re: tedbarber: The answer is no. There was another site with this setup that was proud to introduce Gothic Chess to its members, but [coughs and stares at Ed] it was also removed by the site owner... 1. September 2005, 22:06:11 Subject: Re: Grim Reaper: It doesn't. But under the hood, BrainKing uses Java to generate all these nice pages we love so much :) 1. September 2005, 21:43:31 Subject: Implementation date for CRC Fencer: BTW can "soon" become a bit less vague, please? Isn't it like a patch of the BrainKing Java code for FRC on the Gothic Chess setup?
Yes, I know it's never THAT easy, but... 31. August 2005, 13:29:10 Subject: Last day for new Gothic Chess games! So, please, no 30 days/move silliness, OK? :) 26. August 2005, 23:52:10 Subject: Gothic Chess removal Quite brave of Fencer to go that far. At least Ed's live site might get more traffic this way :) 18. August 2005, 22:43:37 Subject: Re: Grim Reaper: Come on, Ed, you calculated that mate in two-hundred-something moves, this one should be easy-peasy :) 17. June 2005, 11:59:12 Subject: Re: andreas: I heard most of it this morning before heading off to work. It was mostly e-mail questions by the chess.fm public, who were obviously curious about Gothic Chess :) In the end, the presenter put it appropriately: "We can only have this kind of topic once a year, as most of our listeners are interested in standard chess." (or something along those lines)
The listeners seemed to ask plenty of varying questions, mentioning "why not 10x10?" or "what about making it like FRC?" or "what differences to Bird/Capablanca?" etc. Ed was guite thorough, even quoting specific endgame URLs from his website :) 11. June 2005, 14:42:00 Subject: Re: fungame: "Ideal for pawns who don't like to spend years waiting for tournament to finish or for players who like to play fast."
You must be kidding or you don't remember when you were a pawn - if you ever were. Even when your tournament games as a pawn are over, you still have to wait until EVERYBODY ELSE has finished, NOT until YOU have finished and have either: - won your group and, therefore, are happy to wait next round, or - been eliminated and SHOULD be allowed to go and sign up to your next tournament, since you have no more contribution or influence on the present tournament. I mean REALLY!!! 13. May 2005, 11:55:07 Subject: Re: Online Game Smirf / Gothic Inventor Sumerian: "Is your Gothic Vortex even still subject for improvements (beside of providing more looking-up information)?."
Even I can tell, since Chessmaster1000 could beat Gothic Vortex very nicely, that the latter should still have some room for improvement ;) 5. March 2005, 02:31:03 Subject: Re: Tedbarber tedbarber: So BrainKing should be JUST like all other chess sites?!? tsk tsk tsk... 12. February 2005, 11:05:03 Subject: Re: BuilderQ: no, and it looks like a stupid discussion board issue was to blame... 8. December 2004, 16:20:31 I suppose any and all such questions would be easily answerable by Mr Trice, if he decided to grace this board with his presence again... 25. October 2004, 23:37:15 Subject: Pawns have no right to vote As a Pawn, I admit we are not entitled to as many rights as paying members. In any case, maybe Fencer should just make moderating rules such that there is never any dispute as to who can ban who, who can become moderator etc. It's just too loose as it is now...
A good site should have a solid set of rules that everyone WILL follow or not be part of the site. I've written the main policy document for an Internet Relay Chat network in the past and, believe me, there are a LOT of things that need to be taken care of in that environment. In the end, IRC operators (like discussion board moderators here) have an effective tool to police an otherwise unmanageable mess... 14. October 2004, 12:22:34 Subject: Re: Only after Ed has been officially contacted for licensing ;) 13. October 2004, 07:17:23 Subject: Re: Not really, there's Chessbase Light, which is free, and then there's the full Chessbase with more capabilities - surely you could do the same, I mean Chessbase's success proves it can be given away for free in a cut-down version... 7. October 2004, 08:08:42 Subject: Re: Maybe this is a good time, then, to have a preview of the minimum requirements for this next, high-end version? 1. October 2004, 15:56:47 Subject: Re: computer championship ... now isn't that a much nicer deviation from the board's topic? ;) << < 1 2 > >> |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |