Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Masters of the Chess: on Chess Capablanca (10 x 8) 40 pieces
1 2 3 4 Previous Next  
- - By Gryphus (**) Date 2007-08-21 01:46 Edited 2007-08-21 01:48
On Chess Capablanca (10 x 8) 40 pieces
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
Parent - - By lkaufman (*****) Date 2007-08-21 04:35
Capablance chess has been brought back in recent years under the name "Gothic Chess", with the only difference being the starting arrangement of the pieces, which is probably better in the newer version. There were some tournaments with it and some software that can play it. I played a game of it a few years ago with the inventor (of the name and the initial setup) and popularizer, Ed Trice. I won by trading off the "strange" pieces and using my superior skill at normal chess. I don't know how much activity there has been in it lately; search the internet for "Gothic Chess" for more information. I think it is quite a good variant and deserves more popularity than it has achieved. It does seem to have far fewer draws than normal chess, though it's hard to be sure until grandmasters start playing it. I did notice one small "defect"; because there are three super pieces per side, perpetual check is much more likely than in normal chess, so a logical improvement to this version would be to ban perpetual check (which I advocate as a reform for normal chess as well). 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.
Parent - - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-08-21 12:23

>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....
Parent - - By lkaufman (*****) Date 2007-08-21 13:48
     My statement about perpetual check was based on observing some engine vs. engine games a few years ago. However the level of play of the engine was low, so perhaps things would be different with higher level play. Still, it seems to me that the likelihood of reaching an endgame where both sides have a super piece is much higher than in normal chess, and so the chance of perpetual should be higher.
     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?
    
    
Parent - - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-08-21 14:15 Edited 2007-08-21 14:26
Yes but i guess we can't know if we don't see many results.....

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):

http://www.gothicchess.com/

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.....
Parent - - By lkaufman (*****) Date 2007-08-21 16:50
     Since I only work on the evaluation part of Rybka, I can't say, but my guess is that the 10x8 board would make it a major project. But I'm sure it would be a much smaller job than creating Rybka in the first place, because so many of the same ideas would still be valid. I doubt that Vas would want to tackle this job unless a significant market for it exists.
     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?
Parent - - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-08-21 18:57

>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.....
Parent - By lkaufman (*****) Date 2007-08-21 20:38
     As for patent, it obviously couldn't apply to Capablanca chess, and I suppose anyone can set up the pieces as they wish, so I guess the patent really only covers the name, right? There is another version (10x10) called "Grand Chess" which also has some supporters. So I don't see how the patent would be a problem.
     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.
Parent - By JhorAVi (***) [ph] Date 2007-08-22 08:58
The 64bit bitboard--the current move-generation implementation of Rybka no longer applies to Gothic because it uses 80 squares. Evaluation function has no escape either because of it's extensive use of bitboards.
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.
Parent - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-15 17:34 Edited 2007-09-15 17:40
Hi Larry,

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!)
http://www.gothicchess.com/javagames/brainking_db/players/GrimReaper.html

A game with George where maybe I sacrifice too much in the opening to create a severe positional imbalance:
http://www.gothicchess.com/javagames/brainking_db/players/GrimReaper/110/game.htm

My game with Susan Polgar last October:
http://www.gothicchess.com/javagames/db_masterfile/0000017/game.htm

I'm working on getting all of the former BrainKing games online here:
http://www.gothicchess.com/bk_archive.html

Enjoy!
Parent - - By Gryphus (**) Date 2007-08-21 17:20
Friend, why in the Goth did the pieces change of place in relation to Capablanca Chess?
tk
Parent - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-08-21 18:30
Here is why from the inventor of Gothic chess(Ed Trice) perspective..... :
http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/GothicChessIntro.htm
Parent - - By JohnL (***) Date 2007-08-21 18:01
If normal chess is a subset of gothic chess then I guess it must be quite simple to convert Gothic Vortex to play normal chess?!
Parent - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-08-21 18:27
Normal Chess is not a subset of Gothic Chess in the usual meaning of what subset means.....
Parent - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2007-08-21 18:39
I suppose so. You could just flag the extra squares in the board representation as inaccessible, change the starting position to that of normal chess and remove the gothic pieces from the promotion generator and it'd play chess.
Parent - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-15 17:14
Well we did convert Crafty to Gothic Vortex.

For those of you who remember this post...

Parent - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-15 18:32
There is some truth to Larry's statement about perpetual check. I have found Chancellors are more apt to deliver perpetual than Archbishops, since Archbishops tend to inflict unexpected checkmates rather then draws.

Here is a clear example of a Chancellor saving me in a blitz game:

http://www.gothicchesslive.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=773
Parent - - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) [hu] Date 2007-08-22 10:02
I've talked to Ed a few times. He's marketing Gothic chess quite energetically, it might well catch on.

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.

Vas
Parent - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-16 21:36
(sending subliminal message to Vas.... create Gothic Rybka.... create Gothic Rybka...)

:)
Parent - - By insipid (**) [us] Date 2007-09-15 18:58
"so a logical improvement to this version would be to ban perpetual check (which I advocate as a reform for normal chess as well)"

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?
Parent - By Permanent Brain (*****) Date 2007-09-15 19:37
Draw by perpetual check must of course remain, as it is an integral element of chess. It is a motif great and deep ideas of chess players are connected with, both in middle- and endgame. The win isn't always the goal. For example, if I play against opponents rated +100 higher or more, sometimes I would be happy to find a surprise combo for a perpetual. Same for other forced repetitions. Also, endgame play would change a lot... it would reduce a queen's power, or value, in the endgame (at least from the viewpoint of the defending player).

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.
Parent - By lkaufman (*****) Date 2007-09-16 21:42
Perpetual check is illegal in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean chess. Normal repetitions are generally allowed (leading to draws) except in Chinese chess they are forbidden when one side is clearly forcing the repetition by repeated attacks on an enemy piece, in which case he must stop doing so. Naturally this rule is very messy and requires either very complicated, detailed rules or an arbiter's judgement. I would not advocate this for our chess, but a prohibition against perpetual would cut out a lot of draws cleanly. Naturally it would mean some changes in how certain positions are played, but on balance I think the benefits exceed the drawbacks. Other changes (besides stalemate) that would reduce draws substantially are far more drastic than this one.
Parent - - By XmikeX (**) [us] Date 2007-08-21 08:02 Edited 2007-08-21 08:23
I'd like to know (seriously) how/why Mr. Trice received a patent for Gothic "Chess".  Has this happened before with any other variant?

(?!)

As seen here -> http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US6481716
Parent - By XmikeX (**) [us] Date 2007-08-21 08:11 Edited 2007-08-21 08:25
Meanwhile, for some odd reason... Gothic Chess has totally won me over..

-> http://www.gothicchess.com/alexis.html

!
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-15 17:09
I think I might be able to answer that question :)
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-16 17:23
Can you please tell me where I can download the source code for Gothic Vortex?
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-16 23:48
When you find out, let me know too.
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-17 00:11
It's under an Open Source License.  The source code (which I assume you wrote) must be made available upon request.
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-17 01:36
If you were correct, I would agree with you. Read this more carefully.



"...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.
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-17 21:52
Did the code you used from Crafty start with this:

*  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.  
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-17 22:19
Hyatt waived the restrictions, so none of them apply to us. We did not use his code to make a chess program, so he allowed us to do what we wanted. The "original intent" has nothing to do with Gothic Chess.
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-18 00:05
That wasn't the question I asked you.  It doesn't matter if you think he waived away my rights or not.  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.  This is the basis of open source code and always has been.  If you thought it worked differently you were wrong.
Parent - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-18 01:38
So what are you going to do about it?
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2007-09-18 06:54

> 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.
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-18 13:22
Perhaps you missed this part so I'll repeat it:

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.
Parent - - By Permanent Brain (*****) Date 2007-09-18 14:19
If Bob Hyatt has given permission to use the Crafty code for a commercial program which is not open source, how can YOU have rights for anything related to that? Are you involved in creation or release or whatever, of the original Crafty and/or the Gothic Chess program, somehow? If not, then it seems to me you misunderstand something... Obviously the Gothic Chess program isn't open source.

(I don't know if an open source Gothic or Capablanca chess program exists.)
Parent - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-18 14:31 Edited 2007-09-18 14:34
My point is that Bob Hyatt would never give anyone permission to use Crafty without the open source clause, commercial or otherwise.  Why would he?  He gives people permission to use Crafty for commercial use as a natural part of the license he has in Crafty, but never without the open source clause.  To suggest what is written above somehow gets around Bob Hyatt's intent is ridiculous. 

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?

John -
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2007-09-18 14:50

>>...would make such a creation as I am proposing outside of the domain of your intended restrictions


>Definitely...


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.
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-18 15:14
>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


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.
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-18 17:40 Edited 2007-09-18 18:16
This debate should be moved to the Gothic Chess Discussion board:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?showtopic=356
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-18 18:43 Edited 2007-09-18 18:45
No thanks.  There's no debate.  You're in violation of the license.  I don't need a bunch of your fanboys jumping up and down mudding the waters.

...if you want we can move it to an Open Source discussion board.  I think it would likely be more impartial.
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-18 19:22
I'm done posting here regarding this matter.
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-18 19:24
Understandable.
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-19 20:01
I would be more interested in seeing the next email you get from Dr. Hyatt.
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-20 00:23
I would but he didn't give me permission to post that one.  I don't post emails unless the person who sent them gives me authorization to.  If he does, I'll post it here.
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-20 02:00
Answer this question: Did he say you could not post it? I don't see anywhere in the email that you did post where he says you can post it.
Parent - - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-09-20 23:42
He did say I could post the previous post of his email.  He has not given me permission to post the last email which references you phone conversation with him.  If he does, or he chooses to post it himself, is up to him.
Parent - - By GothicChessInventor (**) [us] Date 2007-09-21 02:12
Since I was blind carbon copied on it, and he refuted everything in your previous post, I'll take care of the post.
Parent - By neoliminal (*) [us] Date 2007-11-30 15:13
Wherein I do not represent legal counsel for either Edward A. Trice nor Dr. Robert Hyatt and wherein I have no knowledge of all legal contracts pertaining to the licensing of the program Crafty (copyright Dr. Robert Hyatt) to Edward A. Trice;

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.
Parent - - By AndrewWalker (**) [au] Date 2007-09-18 11:54 Edited 2007-09-18 12:06
Hi, what other countries was this applied for/accpeted as a patent? I'm interested because here in Australia
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!).

Andrew

PS I'll just edit my own post and add and alternative way of viewing the patent is at
www.google.com/patents

and type

patent:6481716

in the search box. This way you can go straight to cited and citing US patents.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Masters of the Chess: on Chess Capablanca (10 x 8) 40 pieces
1 2 3 4 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill