I have only been finding information on this chess in manuals and encyclopedias. Where is this variation played?
Capablanca and Lasker foresaw that soon men and machines would dominate the current chess and that ties (=) would be frequent. We already see a lot of series of ties (=) nowadays in the chess of high level.
The something the friends find of that variation? When will we see this variation become popular? When will we see engines playing that variation? Tournaments, championships, federations, masters and great masters of Capablanca Chess
How more complex this variation is? In comparison with the classic chess the one for what can be waited it? Will it be that Chess Capablanca is condemned to the forgetfulness? In her place the chess 960?
Please to leave her comment
Thank you and excuse me for bad English
>I did notice one small "defect"; because there are three super pieces per side, perpetual check is much more likely than in normal chess.
If you have played enough games like me you will see that your above statement is completely incorrect....
When a major piece in Gothic Chess checks the King then you have to be sure that the King is doomed.....
Huge attacking possibilities with regularly- in fact in every game- sacrifices, of even 2 or 3 pieces, is what the 3 major pieces offer.....
I definitely recommend Gothic Chess for Chess players to try it. It offers what many Chess players want to see in a Chess game: Attacks and sacrifices and crazy combinations.....
>My guess is that if we ever made a serious Rybka version of Gothic Chess, no human would have any chance of ever getting a draw against >Rybka without a handicap.
I'm not so sure about this since in Gothic Chess it is much easier to create a hidden attack than in Chess, from program's horizon. So the much increased branching factor of Gothic Chess makes it even more difficult to overcome this problem of reduced horizon.....
The much more complicated tactics of Gothic Chess of course favor programs, so i can't really decide which factor is more critical....
In my opinion a large branching factor is at least as much of a problem for the human as for the computer. The more tactical nature of the game has to favor the engine, and with draws being uncommon what chance would a human have, when they can only hope to draw in normal chess?
If you had a Gothic Chess Rybka available then you could win $5000 easy money (easy since Rybka's name would bring terror to its computer opponents):
The 2007 Gothic Chess Computer World Championship will again feature prize money to be awarded to the top two finishing programs.
First prize will be a minimum of $5000, guaranteed. Second prize will be a minimum of $2500, guaranteed. In the event that Gothic Vortex wins either prize, that amount will be added to the next tournament's prize fund, and will not be paid during this year's event.
The time control is Game in 75 minutes with a 10 second, non accumulating delay per move.
Every game will be played with a United States Chess Federation Certified Tournament Director in attendance, along with Gothic Chess Federation officials present. Photographs and game scores will be made available when games are completed.
The tournament begins Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 7 PM Eastern time.
Gothic Vortex by Ed Trice is the strongest available program for Gothic Chess right now and it was playing in a Internet server for about a year and was undefeated against humans and computers, with an amazing score as i recall 56-0-0 !!!!
Until i defeated it twice! And then it lost again against Smirf(another program).
I wonder how much time does it take to rewrite Rybka to do it a Gothic Chess program? I guess to create a serious Rybka Gothic Chess program it would need much time as much as Rybka for Chess.
But Ed Trice gives many times big prizes for winning in his tournaments so it may be worth to spend some time.....
If Gothic Vortex is already such a strong program, I would be interested to know if (unassisted) human opponents ever win or even draw any games against it? You mention that you beat it twice, was that unassisted?
>If Gothic Vortex is already such a strong program, I would be interested to know if (unassisted) human opponents ever win or even draw any >games against it? You mention that you beat it twice, was that unassisted?
Of course and i was unassisted. Or else it would be pointless....
If i play 10 games against Rybka 1.2i, i would lose 90% of times all 10 games.
In the other 10% i succeed in losing only 9 games and draw the single game by locking the position and creating a stonewall(father type draws). Other times inside this 10% i even win by closing the center and creating a hidden attack beyond program's horizon. But this is rare.
Rybka just kills me!
But the last type of playing, is surprisingly successful against Gothic Vortex. I even managed to have a positive record against Gothic Vortex in blitz games, with an amazing attacking style with extreme sacrifices that a Chess player would be astonished if they see them.
Locking the center, bringing the major pieces in the opponent's King-side before Pawns and then advancing Pawns and then start sacrificing everything. Vortex usually spends time capturing everything in the Queenside and not seeing the hidden attack that a human "feels" it's there....
I was the reason for major rewrites and improvements of Vortex, as Ed Trice has said repeatedly..... :)
I saw your game against Ed Trice. Yes you played indeed very "Chess like" Gothic Chess. :) I guess you was too much afraid of the 2 new pieces and was unsure and confused about what to do with them and wanted to get rid of them immediately. :)
Gothic Chess is really a very very good game and it's a pity that it is not so popular by now, but i guess the patent thing prevents it from that....
If i have to vote for the best Chess variants i would definitely vote for Atomic Chess, Dark Chess, Progressive Chess and Gothic Chess.....
I don't have much interest in variants that are totally different than chess, but Gothic appeals to me as it is basically normal chess with two new pieces, so most of what we know about chess would still apply.
What is your level in normal chess? I ask just to better assess your good results against Vortex in Gothic chess. It sounds like Gothic programs need a rather different eval than normal chess programs.
Yes, when I played I tried to exchange the new pieces on the grounds that Mr. Trice would be much more skilled at their use than I would be as a beginner.
Therefore it's more than just a simple code rewrite of adding few squares and pieces.
But ofcouse I would be happy if Vas can make Gothic Rybka :) It seems that anti-computer-strategy applies better here because more pieces can support a massive buildup behind pawns for an unstoppable king assault.
Nice to see you and my friend George in here. I can confirm, George's moves were unassisted by computer, and, in fact, were "slow motion attacks" that are beyond the search horizon and difficult to forsee. I did come up with an "attack radar" algorithm that seems to be working. Vortex can anticipate a certain class of these attacks, as well as initiate them (though not as good as George in masking them!)
I have a bunch of Gothic Chess games online now, including some of George's:
164 of my games (10 squared plus 8 squared, perfect for 10x8 chess!)
A game with George where maybe I sacrifice too much in the opening to create a severe positional imbalance:
My game with Susan Polgar last October:
I'm working on getting all of the former BrainKing games online here:
For those of you who remember this post...
Here is a clear example of a Chancellor saving me in a blitz game:
As for Gothic Rybka, or Rybka for other variants - in general, it could be possible, although right now there are many things higher on the priority list.
Wow, that strikes me as way too fundamental of a change. Many positions are saved by the prospect of perpetual check, many such positions are played for. It's a bailout that allows a lot of speculative attacks. Sometimes it's the only fruit of counterplay in the late stages of the game! So many tactics are squashed too.
What about normal repetitions? How can you outlaw that, is it an automatic loss to play into the position a third time?
I think the basic chess rules, or 'Laws of Chess' as FIDE calls them, articles 1 to 5, are a taboo and the composition is perfect.
As seen here -> http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US6481716
"...but it is my hope that the 80 square chess... would make such a creation as I am proposing outside of the domain of your intended restrictions."
NOTE: Hyatt agreed.
Since the Open Source License was one of his restrictions, I am not bound by it.
Don't worry, I consulted an attorney, who was the author of my original request. Since Hyatt allowed us unlimited, unrestricted use of the code, we can do what we want with it. This includes keeping the source code private and selling the software.
* All rights reserved. No part of this program may be reproduced in any
* form or by any means, for other than your personal use, without the
* express written permission of the author. This program may not be used in
* whole, nor in part, to enter any computer chess competition without
* written permission from the author. Such permission will include the
* requirement that the program be entered under the name "Crafty" so that
* the program's ancestry will be known.
* Copies of the source must contain the original copyright notice intact.
* Any changes made to this software must also be made public to comply with
* the original intent of this software distribution project. These
* restrictions apply whether the distribution is being done for free or as
* part or all of a commercial product. The author retains sole ownership
* and copyright on this program except for 'personal use' explained below.
> If you started with Crafty as the base and it had this at the top then not disclosing the source code is infringing on my right to see/use/modify the source code.
Incorrect. You have no such right unless you are given it. Remember, Hyatt still has full rights to his own source, including the right to give permission to distribute modified, closed source copies of it. It's called licensing.
No part of this program may be reproduced in any form or by any means, for other than your personal use, without the express written permission of the author.
Any derivative work will contain the same clause, as stipulated in the license. So I do have the right to a personal copy of the source code.
(I don't know if an open source Gothic or Capablanca chess program exists.)
The question asked (crafted by a lawyer?) seems to address if the code could be used for commercial purposes. Bob said 'definitely', but to assume that means the resulting program somehow is now not covered by the open source license is beyond absurd. Vortex (aka Crafty) is an open source program.
So would you agree that if Bob Hyatt never gave permission to use his program for a non-open source product that Vortex is an open source (commercial) program based on Crafty?
>>...would make such a creation as I am proposing outside of the domain of your intended restrictions
Took me a while to understand, but he was asking whether Hyatt had intended to restrict the use of Crafty's code in Gothic chess programs. The reply seems to give everybody full permission to use Crafty in programs that only play chess variants that have an 80-square board, an Archbishop and a Chancellor. That the license restricts such use is 'definitely unintended'.
>So would you agree that if Bob Hyatt never gave permission to use his program for a non-open source product that Vortex is an open source (commercial) program based on Crafty?
Nah. It'd just be an illegal clone.
Nah. It'd just be an illegal clone
Any clone would have the license in it, or it should. If it does not then you are right, it's an illegal clone with the license removed. If the license was used correctly then the source needs to be released, if not then it should be brought back into legal status immediately.
...if you want we can move it to an Open Source discussion board. I think it would likely be more impartial.
1. To the best of my knowledge, Edward A. Trice has acted in good faith in regards to all licensing of the program Crafty (copyright Dr. Robert Hyatt).
2. I, John Lewis, based upon threat of legal action by Edward A. Trice, retract any claims that Edward A. Trice has violated, infringed upon, or otherwise not complied with the licensing of Crafty (copyright Dr. Robert Hyatt).
Copyright 2007 (c) John Lewis. All rights reserved. No copy of this text may be transmitted in part or in full without the express written permission of the author.
one of the requirements for a patent is that it must be a "Method of Manufacture" This is a very grey area
that has been the subject of a number of court cases. I don't know if there are similar rules elsewhere, but
one of the main reasons behind it was people trying to patent business methods, some of which are ok
and some are rubbish!
Anyway, I'll see if I can access the examiner's report at work tomorrow (I'm no expert but I've been working
in patent examining for a year, and I still have much to learn!).
PS I'll just edit my own post and add and alternative way of viewing the patent is at
in the search box. This way you can go straight to cited and citing US patents.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill