Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Future of Rybka: 10x8 Capablanca Random Chess
Poll Would you be intersted in 10x8 Capablanca Random Chess version of Rybka ? (Closed)
Yes 7 25%
No 17 61%
I don't care 4 14%
- - By mhfm (*) [us] Date 2008-05-07 14:07
I was wodering if this is a possibility for say version of 4. Seems to me it should be pretty easy to add this variant.

Here is an excellent program that aleady does it.

http://www.geocities.com/smirf.chess
Parent - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2008-05-07 14:17

> Seems to me it should be pretty easy to add this variant.


Not for a bitboard engine, and definitely not without a significant performance hit.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2008-05-07 16:28
I would be strongly against this because things are different in this kind of chess and so developing this would hinder the future development of Rybka.
Parent - - By mhfm (*) [us] Date 2008-05-07 17:35
yes it would require more resources, but it would also bring in more money from sales. There are millions of chess fans around the world. Even if only 10% of people were interested in it, it would still be worth it.

Aternatively Vas could license his source code to some other developer who could develop this variant.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2008-05-07 17:37
This would just be a distraction.  The vast majority of chess fans have no idea what this variant is, and I think that something like this added to Rybka at this point would be like painting a mustache on Mona Lisa.
Parent - - By mhfm (*) [us] Date 2008-05-07 17:43

> The vast majority of chess fans have no idea what this variant is


Maybe, but this would change very fast. FRC was unknown until recently and now it looks like it will become the standard.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2008-05-07 18:26
"Looks like it will become the standard"?!  Maybe in 100 years or something.  The vast majority of chess fans have no idea what FRC is, either.
Parent - - By InspectorGadget (*****) [za] Date 2008-05-08 07:29
"The vast majority of chess fans have no idea what FRC is, either."

Hahahaha, Turbo, I like FRC and I tried to introduce it to my friends, they are just not interested. They just feel like they are not playing chess, especially when it comes to the castling rules, they just don't want to hear anything about it. What more when they could hear about Capablanca Random chess. Anyway, I would like to learn more about it. Any idea where I can download the FREE software for it?
Parent - - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-08 07:47
A page with some links to home pages of free WinBoard 10x8 engines:

http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/10x8.html

A (slightly outdated) page that also lists some non-WinBoard engines:

http://www.gothicchess.com/Winboard_F.html
Parent - By InspectorGadget (*****) [za] Date 2008-05-08 09:47
Thanks  h.g.muller
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2008-05-08 08:46

> What more when they could hear about Capablanca Random chess.


One thing I've always wondered is why the queen on chess1 is a mix between a bishop and a rook and not a mix between rook and knight or bishop and knight? Bishop+Knight would have been interesting as the current queen is too powerful (and the Bishop+Knight piece can mate a king alone.)
Parent - - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-08 09:17
The B+N compound (Archbishop A) is indeed a wonderfully elegant piece, but much stronger than one might expect, only slightly weaker than a Queen or th R+N compound: A+P balance, or even have a slight edge over a Queen, when the material imbalance occurs in the opening.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2008-05-08 09:41
I've always dreamed in a chess variant in where most pieces are somewhat leveled. One way to do it is to lower the value of the Queen (turning it into an Archbishop is a viable option considering that you'd want to have a Queen instead of an Archbishop in most positions), the rook would remain the same (I consider the piece fine as it is), the Bishop could become cylindrical (increasing its value, and gaining abilities that the Archbishop lacks) and the Knight could become a Knightraider (?) with specific rules that allow it to move twice in most positions, but not all (I would not like to see it eating two pieces in a row, for example.)

The Pawn is a little tricky, but a nice way to increase its value would be to allow it to promote to a Toroidal Queen, or an Amazon (even though I've been told that promoting to pieces not playable from the get-go is against the spirit of chess, I think that the spirit has been lost already.)

That way people could stop caring too much about exchange values and enjoy the game more (if now capturing the CyBishop with the Rook doesn't require much thinking.) And I don't know how tactical/positional the variant would become, as it would be easier to go aggressive due to the increased mobility (As the King is a normal King) but perhaps undesirable due to possible counterattacks.

Too bad getting a new variant to become popular is near impossible, enough to not even try anything.
Parent - - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-08 10:09 Edited 2008-05-08 10:16
A cylindrical Bishop is worth exactly one Pawn more than a normal one (on an 8x8 board), so still significantly less than a Rook. Your Knightraider (technically "bent Knight double-leaper) sounds like an extremely dangerous piece. A normal Nightrider (repeating the Knight jump in the same direction until the first obstacle) is already ~0.6 Pawns stronger than a Rook. And, as the third and fourth step almost always fall off the board anyway, I expect a linear Knight double-leaper (a "short" Nightrider) to be hardly weaker. But the bent version, which can reach an enormous number of destinations on an empty board, must be enormously stronger. My guess is that it would be worth much more than a Queen.

Amazon is worth exactly as much as a Knight plus a Queen. There apparently is hardly any synergy. Or the piece is handicapped by the fact that there is no counterpart fro which you can trade it easily. (Unlike A and C, which can be approximately traded for Queen.)
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2008-05-08 10:48
Ok, so I'm faraway from tracks, let's try going back into the way.

Bishop: What about a Cylindrical+Bouncing Bishop? The Bouncing Bishop can "bounce" on a wall once, and continue as if the board was mirrored. So when a Cylindrical Bouncing Bishop reaches a wall, it can decide to go cylindrical or bounce back to the board. In this image, normal moves are green, cylindrical blue, and bouncing red:



If that's not enough one could also let it bounce on the "floor and ceiling" of the board.

Knight: Ok, so I went haywire with the knight and made it stronger than a queen, sorry about that. 0.6 pawns stronger than a rook seems about reasonable for a Knightraider, perhaps weakening it by only allowing it to use its abilities depending on its position of the board would be a good solution (perhaps by only letting it use them on its own territory or on the enemy territory, whatever it takes to make it as close as a rook.)

Pawn: What is stronger, an Amazon or the Toroidal Queen? (The Toroidal queen can "warp" from the top to the bottom of the board as well as from left to right like the cylindrical queen, but only would be usable by promotion, I think) Or is there another very strong piece advisable to be used for pawn promotions with the object of making pawns more valuable?
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2008-05-08 11:13 Edited 2008-05-08 11:18

> Or is there another very strong piece advisable to be used for pawn promotions with the object of making pawns more valuable?


How about a 'Double King' instead? As in, a piece that can make any two king moves in one move (unless the first move is a capture). From what I remember, it's significantly stronger than the Queen.

6k1/7p/7K/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1


Mate!

Promoted pawns can almost always be captured immediately, though. And when they can't, well, the game is usually already over. :)
Parent - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2008-05-08 12:17
Interesting, I like it! Since its range is lower than that of a bishop and a rook, I'd call it "Tank", slow but powerful! :)
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2008-05-08 12:53
How is this mate?

...Ke6!
Parent - - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-08 12:44
I have not tested any bouncing pieces (but it would be a nice feature, reasonably easy to add, for Fairy-Max). My estimate is that the bouncing Bishop which bounces from the side edges would be equal in value to a cylindrical one. If you allow it to choose between bounce and wrap-around, it will be significantly stronger. Educated guessing would suggest that the difference between cyclindrical and cylindrical+bounce would be as least as large as that between plain cylindrical and normal Bishop, as you add an equal number of moves, and the value of a piece usually grows at least linear with the number of moves.

Bouncing from the front and back edges would make it even more valuable, but I cannot predict exactly by how much. In the early middle-game it would not add much, unlike side-edge bouncing / wrapping. I don't really like wrapping over the back edges, it is an unnatural topology, as in the initial setup it would make the Kings border (even if they are not allowed to step over the line).

A plain cyclindrical Queen was already 2 Pawns stronger than a normal one, and also here bouncing should be a similar enhancement as wrapping. Bouncing from all edges would make it extremely strong.

But I think Vempele is right: promoting to a stronger piece will not add anything to the Pawn value. A Queen is already strong enough to decide the game, if it can't be captured. Getting a stronger piece will thus never change the outcome of the came, and is a useless enhancement. To make Pawns more valuable, without altering their basic character, perhaps it would help to give them lateral captures as well. But be careful: the Pawn is the sould of Chess, and tamperring with it is likely to radically alter the game. Much more so than merely adding one or two strange pieces.

If you want to handicap the Nightrider a little, I guess allowing it a maximum of 2 steps in the same direction ("Short Nightrider") would approximately do it.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2008-05-08 23:15 Edited 2008-05-08 23:19
I made some research and it seems bouncing pieces are called "Billiard Pieces", but the Billiard pieces have some laws of motion rules that hinder the movement of the pieces. I don't like the Billiard Bishop:



Since it only moved 2 normal squares to the left, it can only bounce 2 extra squares (Represented by the orange circles.) The white circles represent what would happen if we allow top-bottom bouncing and "infinite" bouncing (restricted by the 5 normal squares moved originally, so it can only move 5 extra squares.) And supposedly, a billiard bishop hitting h1 may change color by h1-h2-g3-f4. So my advice is to just ignore Billiard Pieces altogether and keep the Bouncing ones (Even if the Billiard ones are the original.)

The bouncing Knight seems really odd:



I don't think they are practical for human games (because one doesn't expect to see the knight moving diagonally, even if it used the edge for that.)

I find interesting that the Rook and King don't gain new mobility by bouncing (because the new mobility is redundant as they had access to these squares without needing to bounce.) And that Bouncing Pawns can capture forward only when they are on the edge.

But I agree with you about the pawns, let them alone because we'd run the risk of the variant not resembling chess at all. Just let them promote to queens even if queens don't appear in the board from the opening positions.

The Short Nightrider sounds fine. If the main idea was to have a Knight, Bishop and Rook with close values, I think we're close enough.
Parent - - By InspectorGadget (*****) [za] Date 2008-05-08 09:52
"(and the Bishop+Knight piece can mate a king alone"

Vytron, I have been playing chess for a long time, but I still struggle to checkmate with a Bishop and a Knight. I remember oneday I was playing with a certain guy and we got to the endgame I had a Knight and a Bishop. I just accepted a draw maybe around the 10th move with those pieces. Man, I need a lot of training :):):)
Parent - - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-08 10:01
If you know that the mate can occur only in the corners of the Bishop color, and use the distance of the bare King to first the edge, and then the corner as a progress measure, this end-game becomes nearly trivial.
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2008-05-08 10:13 Edited 2008-05-08 10:18
Provided you have memorized the mate in 18 after
5k2/5N2/5K2/5B2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
.
Your description is enough for engines, though. :)
Parent - - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-08 10:47
If you remember that it is easy to trap the bare K with just B+N in a small triangle near the deadly corner, so that you have all the time in the world to manouevre your King in position, even that is easy. Then you don't have to be so afraid that he will escape into the 'open', leaving the edge by fleeing towards the corner:

3k4/7K/8/1B1N4/8/8/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1
Parent - - By Kappatoo (*****) [de] Date 2008-05-08 12:10
I hope you do not consider this question as direspectful: May I ask for your (approximate) rating? I am a trainer and work with some pretty talented kids with a rating of ca. 1800. When I asked them whether they are able to checkmate with knight and bishop, they all said 'Of course, silly question, this is easy!' I let them try and none of them was able to do it. Even some strong grandmasters failed here (most famous example: Epishin, having 10 minutes left).

Of course, if you are a comparably decent player, and practice a bit, it becomes quite easy.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2008-05-08 12:56
I think that generally speaking, it requires at least master level to be able to do this.  I recall reading in Silman's Endgame Manual that he doesn't want to teach the reader how to do this because not only is it actually a pretty high-level technique (his manual goes up through 2200 level), but the time spent learning it could be much better spent on learning other things, especially since even experienced players will often never see it in their lives in an actual game.
Parent - - By Kappatoo (*****) [de] Date 2008-05-08 13:01
On the other hand, I heard that in the Soviet Union, it was one of the first things beginners were taught.
Like I said, I think with sufficient practice, nearly everybody can learn it rather quickly, but without this, you probably have to be quite strong to work it out on the board in reasonable time.
Plus: The mating takes 35 moves from some positions, so you cannot afford to let the king escape too often ...
Parent - By BB (****) [au] Date 2008-05-09 04:49

>On the other hand, I heard that in the Soviet Union, it was one of the first things beginners were taught.


Polgar mated Ljubojevic blindfolded in KBN vs K back in 1994. I've this about the USSR also, though some students (such as Karpov) have been known to dodge out when they get to KNN vs KP in the next lesson. :-P
Parent - By InspectorGadget (*****) [za] Date 2008-05-09 07:14
"it requires at least master level to be able to do this."

Turbo, this gives me some kind of relief (unable to mate with a Knight and a Bishop) :). Ever since I played chess I only got to that point of Bishop and Knight endgame only once in my life. I used to practice it in Fritz, but those are specific positions when it is easy to solve. But, I am going to practice it now.
Parent - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-09 07:33

> I think that generally speaking, it requires at least master level to be able to do this.


I am happy to learn that I have risen to master level, after 25 years of non-practice! :-) :-) :-)
Parent - - By AsosLight (***) [gr] Date 2008-05-08 13:10
I agree that is a very defficult task especialy if you are not specially trained for this no matter how strong player you are.
Personaly though i find much more defficult the engame Q+K vs R+K. Against a program i have less than 50% in rapid TC.
Parent - - By Kappatoo (*****) [de] Date 2008-05-08 13:19
Yes, this is terribly tricky against engines. Interestingly, it is generally quite simple against humans. I had to play it a few times and always won easily.
(By the way, I hope you mean less than 50% winning  percentage :))
Parent - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2008-05-08 13:44
Unless the human knows the third-rank defence and doesn't try anything fancy while setting it up.
Parent - - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-08 13:18
I haven't played for 25 years now, and at the level I played, ratings were not calculated in those days. But these simple end-games have nothing to do with Chess, and GMs are on the average not better at it than any randomly picked person with a talent for solving puzzles. So rating is not really relevant, and is more a measure of the skill of making middle-game evaluations. I have no trouble beating the tablebase at the Shredder website in this end-game. I don't always pick the fastest move, but most of the time I do, and might lose ~5 moves compared to the fastest path.
Parent - By Kappatoo (*****) [de] Date 2008-05-08 13:22
These endings have a lot to do with calculation and especially piece coordination, and thus better players will generally be better in them. Like I said, if you have some practice and know the mechanisms, it becomes quite trivial.
Parent - By InspectorGadget (*****) [za] Date 2008-05-08 11:41
Hi Vempele. Maybe I haven't practiced this a lot. The thing is when I think the mate was almost there, the King always, oops! most of the time manages to escape.
Parent - - By mhfm (*) [us] Date 2008-05-08 14:10
Filipov:

you can download it here:

http://www.geocities.com/smirf.chess
Parent - - By InspectorGadget (*****) [za] Date 2008-05-09 07:21
Thanks, I was at first annoyed by that Archbishop because it used to pernetrate my position quickly. After a couple of games, I started to get hold of things and finally won at least one  game without any take back. :)

I don't know, maybe the program played poorly because I was running an engine match on another program. Well, I don't care about that much, what counts most is that I beat Vortex :)
Parent - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-09 07:30
Note that Smirf (the link above) is not Vortex; Vortex is a commercial program, and the free download is intentionally crippled by limiting the search depth. For Smirf there  also is a free and a 'bonus' version, but the free version is not really intentionally crippled. It is just an older version, not made with a very fast compiler. Joker80 and TJchess are truly freeware.
Parent - - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-07 16:59

> Here is an excellent program that aleady does it.


And it is not even the strongest, not even amongst free WinBoard engines. For the results of the recent championship of WinBoard engines in this game, see:

http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/BotG08G/finalstanding.html

It has taken me two weeks to convert my engine Joker to play this game. And it is much more fun watching than normal Chess, which is really a boring game. No Archbishop... Yeghhh!
Parent - - By mhfm (*) [us] Date 2008-05-07 18:31
Could you make your Joker80 engine work within SMIRF GUI using TMCI protocol ? I really like that GUI.
Parent - By h.g.muller (****) [nl] Date 2008-05-07 18:44 Edited 2008-05-07 18:46
Alas, no. TMCI is not compatible with anything, and requires the engine to be a DLL. Joker80 is a standard console application communicating over the standard input and output in WinBoard protocol, and works under WinBoard_F and ChessGUI.

I don't think the SmirfGUI supports engine-engine play anyway.
Parent - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) [hu] Date 2008-05-08 14:47
Rybka 4 is probably too early for this sort of thing but at some point, maybe when we've added some manpower, we'll definitely consider it.

Vas
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Future of Rybka: 10x8 Capablanca Random Chess

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill