[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by RobertoLavieri
Glinski's Hexagonal Chess. Chess on a board made out of hexagons. (Cells: 91) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have not confident data available, but I have seen a few results in high-level tournaments, by curiosity. I can´t conclude, but it seems, more or less, as drawish as Chess. It means: very drawish, as FIDE-Chess is, when played at very high level of play.
This variant tries to balance the skills of players. It is a very simple idea: A drink can be given to the attacker once a piece is taken. If the attacker has to drink for every piece taken and for every check, the game creates a natural handicap for the more skilled player, as he is going to get drunk faster. Feel free to add as many variations as the game can sustain. Use different amounts or just plain different alcohols for different pieces, and depending on the opponent. As an example, soon you'd begin to identify the bishop with red wine and the knight with a frosty beer. Put the strong drink in the queen as a further reward for taking the coveted most-powerful piece. If you are going to face Topalov, I suggest you select Vodka for him, and orange juice for you, and amounts depend on the taken piece, I suggest you must be widely generous with him. You have only to resist enough, don´t allow a fast checkmate.
About Game Courier. Web-based system for playing many different variants by email or in real-time.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I`m talking about borders around the whole board. I agree that borders around squares are not very nice, regardless you can visualize better the things, but reasonable contrast is, almost all the time, enough for good visualization. Aesthetic is also important, and majority of people would not be gained for such borders in every square. I agree.
I am talking about Ultima boards, but it applies to any other board without borders of any kind
I like there are new (automatic and alternative) boards and sets available, but I have an observation: I think it is much better a (perhaps very thin) border for some of the boards, like the CSS tiled background images and the PNG's. I feel that some squares, more those at the corners, vanishes to my eyes sometimes, producing me a bad sempsation. Well, my case is somewhat particular, I have some known moderate troubles with my vision, I don´t expect it affects other players in any way, but if it is the case, can anybody add a thin border (simple lines can be enough) to those boards and observe the effect?.
I have modified the Maxima Preset for a game against Matthew, using Casaux graphics, because Matt does not like the original pieces in the available preset. I´m not sure what happened, but I see now abstract graphics, and, certainly, not very suggestive. My vision is not very good, so I expect I can play it with almost every kind of icons without noting great difference, it is sufficient I can diferentiate the pieces in a good manner, but I don´t know Matt´s opinion yet.
I am not editor, so I can´t prepare alternative Maxima Graphics for the Preset. If you use other sets editing the actual preset automatically, there are some troubles with the icons for the pieces, because they are not suggestive. But it would be good an alternative Preset using Alfaerie graphics.
K4 
. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It looks very nice!. Comments and ratings after testing (I expect today or tomorrow)
Grander Chess. A variant of Christian Freeling's Grand Chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]As David, I´m also mathematician, and I also prefer avoid claims of 'maximal logical consistency', by various reasons, but, fundamentally, because I don´t understand what exactly it means.
And about the case in question, I`m not making comments about the game itself, I have not tested it, but it does not look bad. Nevertheless, I agree: proliferation of variant-numberings is not desiderable in any case.
Well, it is not only a name´s matter. Yes, our site is growing fast, and no one is taking in account that many, many variants can come without any quality control, and the names can be less suggestive than supposed in a lot of cases. Do you imagine series of poorly designed 'Improved Chess' variants?, say: 1, 2, 3, etc, or even worse, with roman numbers.
Today finishes Morelia Tournament, and if you are not following it, I bet you can´t guess what is happening: Topalov is the tail-ender right now !!!. Leko is ahead with an entire point of advantage.
The LOGS for the games of Altair (2 against Carlos Carlos) and the LOG for the game of Great Chess (against Bogot Bogot) are also corrupted. In the Great Chess log are even pieces missing.
The graphics in the Ultima LOG I´m playing with Matthew Montchalin: /play/pbm/play.php?game=Ultima&log=matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2006-46-987 ARE CORRUPTED. Can somebody give a hand with this?. You can see the position of the pieces, although somewhat distorted, but you can´t see the board. Instead, you see superposed multiple boards forming a wall. HELP, PLEASE!
Yesterday in Morelia Tornament, Mexico, Peter Svidler beated Vesselin Topalov in the first round, in a beautiful and very interesting game.
The Travelers . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Finally, it is here, 'The Travelers' Zillions rules file. It was not easy: at first, I was unable to implement the Displacer´s capabilities in a good manner. Antoine Fourriére and Larry Lynn Smith sent to me solutions, being that of Larry very nice and perfectly functional for the way I figured the best for the players point of view, so I have chosen it for the project, and many optimizations of the code made by Larry. After that, the ZRF played correctly, but fatally poorly. We have had two problems: The ZRF undervaluated the Displacer´s value, the AI recognizes, for that purpose, the mobility of the Displacer, but it does not consider the moved enemy piece to an usually bad position, I believe this is part of the movement of the Displacer, and a very important part of its power. Undervaluated, the ZRF tendence was exchange the Displacer by a small piece, falling in inferior positions quickly and losing the games without great fight. I have had to inflate the value of the Displacer, but augmenting the number of positions analyzed by the AI a lot; taking onto the balance, I preferred this alternative. But there was another big problem: The Travelers´s tendence was to stay in their initial positions, without clarity on the fact thay it have to advance to the goals if they want a victory. After many ideas from Larry and me, all of them unsuccessful, I ideated a very artificious trick that worked, using some very complex 'win and loss conditions'. The final ZRF is a very, very decent opponent, as you can see. Try it!.
Thanks to Antoine Fourriere and Larry L. Smith, for the valious hand given. Great job, Larry, coding correctly the Displacer´s capabilities. The ZRF is now complete, it is going to be posted here soon...
Hex Shogi 91. A hexagonal Shogi variant on a 91-space board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have tested this variant using Zillions. Hexagonal variants are not of my main preferences, but I have found this variant enjoyable. Nice game play, and the original Shogi flavor is preserved.
I have found this contest in Internet, see the article: “Chess desperately needs some glamour,” says Vladislav Tkachiev, explaining why he hosts World Chess Beauty Contest, 1wcbc.com, a website that ranks female chess players based not on their winnings, but on their looks, reports Dylan Loeb McClain in The New York Times (11/27/05). His website isn’t the only one objectifying women in the name of promoting chess. The Internet Chess Club, chessclub.com, is also known to judge female players based on their looks as well as their moves. And at least one female player, Alexandra Kosteniuk, kosteniuk.com, “uses her website to sell photos of herself posing in bikinis next to giant chess pieces.” Most of this trend emanates “from Eastern Europe, whose players have long dominated the sport and where cheesecake displays are less likely to draw complaints.” Vladislav Tkachiev totally defends it, saying that it’s important for people to realize that brains and beauty are not mutually exclusive: “They think that it is only a game for those who are quite inactive and unattractive and aged,” adding: “There are a lot of attractive people, whether female or male. We decided to show this side of chess.” And, in fact, some of the better-looking players are also the better players period: Maria Manakova “is the fourth-ranked woman in Russia … and is ranked eighth on the Beauty Contest site.” Alexandra Kosteniuk “is ranked fifth in the world among women,” athough she’s only 525th overall. Meanwhile, Jennifer Shahade, 'a two-time United States women’s champion who has published a book about her experiences as a woman playing a game dominated by men,' and declares herself a feminist, says Alexandra Kosteniuk is 'good for chess' but acknowledges that the chess beauty site 'isn’t very classy.' As for the guys, many of whom aren’t exactly beefcake material themselves — some of them complain of being distracted by the growing numbers of pretty opponents. However, Maria Manakova, for one, denies she’s a distraction: 'I don’t need to distract my opponent or do something. I can do it after the game if I want. During the game I just want to play good chess.' ~ Tim Manners, editor
The Cuernavaca Tournament, in Mexico, has finished one hour ago. Ten of the world´s strongest young players were in. Final results for the first positions: 1. Vallejo Pons, Francisco gm ESP 2650......... 6.5 Ponomariov, Ruslan gm UKR 2723.............. 6.5 3. Nakamura, Hikaru gm USA 2644 ................6.0 4. Dominguez, Lenier gm CUB 2638 ...............5.5 This Tournament was horrible for Serguei Karjakin, who finished near the bottom. The other Ukranian, Volotikin, did also relatively poor.
I give up. I´m throwing the towell, it does not work properly with any idea I have tried.
Hello, everybody. I have had big troubles trying to implement the game 'The Travelers' using Zillions Rules File Language, Displacer capabilities is a headache, I can´t find a good way to manage it using Zillions. I could implement tht Traveler movement, but I´m not sure what is the best way to do that. Has anyone idea about how to make a reasonable implementation of the Displacer´s movement and capabilities?. IF someone can give a kind hand in the implementation, I´ll be very pleased. Thanks, anticipated.
It is time to put the Ratings page in a visible sector. Also the next Tournament Page.
A few days ago, I sent a Preset and rules for the game: 'The Travelers', to be posted in Game Courier. I´ll be pleased if an Editor may help me a bit with it, posting the game. Thanks.
Corus ended a few hours ago, Anand won and Topalov divided the point. Final standings: Topalov and Anand tied in first place, with 9 points, 1.5 points over the third positions (Ivanchuk and Adams). In group B, Magnus Carlsen managed to share first with Motylev.
I have tried to see the ongoing game between Topalov and Anand, but the Corus server is, perhaps, over-charged, and it seems to be difficult the access. Has anyone information?
You can see the games at Corus site: Anand-Karjakin and Topalov-Aronian. It must be said that, at the moment of resignation of the opponents, the material advantage of Karjakin and Aronian were notorious, and even Karjakin promoted a Pawn (To Knight!) in a position in which his Queen was also with dangerous chance of attack Anand´s King, and Karjakin did it without success, as previously must be analyzed Anand. Karjakin and Aronian have had to resign after more than 20 moves from the surprisingly first sacrifices. Aronian was obligated to fall in zugzwang, in an incredible game by Topalov.
Topalov won, Anand divided the point, so Topa is ahead again by a half of point. I think Chess is losing some charm by cause of home-prepared moves, regardless its espectacularity. A few days ago, Anand left people with the mouth open, after a series of sacrifices without a clear positional advantage, and won 20 moves after. Yesterday Topalov performed an amazing rook sacrifice, enough for his opponent´s resignation 26 moves after. There is not doubt about the move: it is almost impossible that anybody would be tempted to make that move without a previous exhaustive analysis, perhaps with the help of Fritz or another super-program. Anand and Topalov are playing some games looking for the application of impressive home-made surprises, they are both really strong, but they are showing, mainly, an excellent home preparation and an incredible memory, more than Chess skills, although there is not doubt both are really strong.
Andreas suggestion makes sense, it is ideal you can play the game, and it is supposed that an 8x8 chess board and a chess set is easely available. The problem is, perhaps, that there is not too much space to explore looking for great impact, we (and others) have almost exhausted the best ideas. But there is always space to go into. In every case, I think it can be nice a new type of contest, apart from the usual: 'design a Chess variant in N squares'.
Topalov and Anand won today amazing games, both are tied on the top with an entire point over the third position occupied by Gelfand and Adams. We can expect something interesting when Topalov faces Anand on Saturday the 28th.
The Travelers. Missing description (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I´m guilty, I remember I have typed the blank after 'zcherryz' considering it can´t cause any effect. Sorry.
It would be interesting a contest for a Chess-like game with unconventional objectives, by example: connect all the remaining pieces, or something like that. Any good ideas?.
Topa and Vishy are tied again in first place. Anand beated Bacrot in a complicated end in which all could happen, and Topalov battled trying to beat Gelfand, in a slightly superior position in the ends for Topalov, but Gelfand´s defense was fine. Draws. In group B, Carlsen continues ahead with one point of advantage. In the Corus official site you can see the games live when they are being played.
Gata Kamsky beated Anand, and Topa is now tied with him in first position. In gruop B, the boy Magnus is ahead with an entire point of advantage!.
The Travelers. Missing description (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Christine, I´ll prepare a Preset, perhaps tomorrow or on Sunday. If you want we can test the game the next week, with its original rules, playing a couple of simultaneous games out of 'rating'. I don´t expect we are going to play inmortal games of extreme beauty and precision, but at least we can test it with some detail. 'Taking back the last move' is going to be permissed, of course, as commented analysis of possible moves by both bands.
Updated, changing some pieces names. I would appretiate opinions about the rules for victory: Adding the 'capture both Travelers or reach the last rank with the remaining Travelers' rule, the game is clearly a Chess variant, but I´m afraid it would be more complex. Nevertheless, I can try some tests. It would be also good a Preset in Courier (for tests, out of 'rating statistics', please, or it is not going to be useful enough for the purposes).
OH, what a mistake!, thanks Michael, I´ll try another names for these pieces. Christine: I am planning a ZRF, and for it I have to imagine a good manner to implement the Traveler movement, I have had some troubles with the command 'attacked?' in other opportunities in which there are different piece movements, and I doubt it works well here, more considering the Displacers (a Traveler is not 'in check' if it can be 'displaced'). Suggestions?. I´ll be happy with all possible help for the ZRF. Answering Michael: Is this game a Chess variant?. I have also my doubts, but the 'check' concept is used here, although in a different way. If you allow the Travelers to be capturable, and add a new rule for a victory: 'You can also win the game if you capture both enemy Travelers before they reach the last rank', and change the original first objective saying: 'You win the game when all your remaining Travelers reach the last rank', the game should be considered a Chess variant, being the Travelers the royal pieces, but it adds much more complexity to the game play, and it is enough as is, so I am not very tempted to change the original rules, even if the game is not clearly considered a Chess variant. As for now, the game play is very interesting, as I have tested, it seems that Travelers must advance hightly protected, and exchange of pieces are not trivial, and the piece values are definitely relative to positions: it makes not sense an 'approximate generic value' of each piece in this game, but I have not doubts about Displacers: they are very powerful pieces, more than any other. A good sequence of exchanges and displacements can be decisive sometimes, but the end can come in a few moves and you can lose after a 'material-oriented' although bad sequence of exchanges, and sacrifices seem to be very common in the ends of game. Yes, the game play is very unusual, I believe unique, and it needs training.
Game Courier Tournament #2. Sign up for our 2nd multi-variant tournament to be played all on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Rococo Tournament LOG I have had to play against G.W.Duke was deleted, but I have played another Rococo game against George, and it has finished, and he won in a very good game. Please consider it as it was the Tournament game, for the Tournament statistic purposes.
Anand and Topalov (It is not a surprise, of course) lead group A: 1. V. Topalov V. Anand 3 3. B. Gelfand V. Ivanchuk 2½ In group B, the top positions are, after 4 rounds: 1. A. Naiditsch 3½ 2. G. Vescovi D. Navara M. Carlsen 3 The boy Carlsen continues playing very well.
Adams won against Topalov!. In group B, Magnus Carlsen won again, the boy continues with his good performance. He is now easely in the top-100, and ascending. Take also in account brazilian Vescovi and the Indian girl Humpy Koneru in this strong group.
I was impressed by the game in which Anand beated Karjakin. I believe it was a home-made analysis, I can´t figure how anybody can calculate so far, making very risky moves and tons of sacrifices since 20 moves before the end and without clear superiority in the position. Amazing.
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Other weakness I see is that You don´t know how many games are needed to consider a rating to be 'somewhat confident'. It is very possible that a player with only a few games played, say less than ten, but with almost perfect score against 'well rated' players, show a rating that does not reflect the player´s force, being the rating, perhaps, much less than other player´s rating with a lot of games played but much less average and relatively worse record against others. It has been said that the rating must stabilize with time, but I´m not sure how many games are needed, and the disparity in number of games may introduce a bias that can give ratings that could be not so easy to compare with accuracy. But once 'stabilized', the whole history introduces another bias, product of very old games considered with the same weight as new ones, this is the main reason I insist with the weighted history idea.
I think GCR is an alternative good method, although it has its weaknesses, as ELO also has. Both are not very sensitive to drastic changes in a person´s game play, I know it is unusual, but not impossible. But I insist that weighted history must be considered, weighted history (for each game,I mean) can reflect some evolution in player´s game force, it is expected to happen in our site, because many of the games we play are new games, all of us are gaining experience with little theory as help, and results are less indicative in the first contacts with a game. GCR main weakness is that it does not reflect with the best accuracy the actual real force, but it tends toward an average over all the time.
I used 'inedit' in a past comment, this is not an english word. Use 'new' instead.
THe link is not available. And talking about Greg Strong, there are not new comments from him in this site since some time. What´s new, Greg?.
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Age filter and some other filters don´t work yet.
You are right about the use of the age filter to reflect 'current' ratings (this is not enterely true, but it can be a better approximation), although I still disagree with you about the weighted history, I think it can be good for our purposes, but I recognize it is not easy give the weights in every case. This site contains many games for which people is learning and constructing some basis for better play by experience, and this is a step-by-step proccess, perhaps long in time; all of us must be considered real novices in many games, this is a reason to consider weighted history, precisely by the nature of this site. The case is other if we are talking about old, popular games widely played since a lot of time, but TCVP contains many new games, and the list is expected to grow in the future. I insist with other claim: not all games must be rated, or the rating system can be a tool which mainly reflects how good is someone to play in an inedit scenario. The list of 'rated' games can grow, but with games that become 'relatively popular' with time.
I think that a 'weighted history' makes sense in every rating system. Recent played games must have more importance in the rating calculations than old ones. This may help to reflect drastic changes in real player´s force. Illness, temporary desinterest, and other factors can make players skills fall down, and experience, progressive knowledge of a game, high interest and other factors can help to increase rating quickly in some cases.
There is a very little error in my all time performance. The result in the LOG rlavieri2003-cvgameroom2004-318-638 was not counted (it says 'has won', but no one is mentioned). I believe there is another error, but I can´t find it, my own record register gives 38.0/75
I agree with the Gravity modifier, but you need tune all the modifiers, although I am not sure what is going to be the best, we need good arguments for the decisions, and these are not enterely clear. I think the method, as now, has some weaknesses, basically due to the weight of modifiers. If you have some troubles with my English, please tell me. I´m trying to write orthodox English, as possible.
I don´t dislike Fergus method, but it needs some tuning, and, perhaps, one or a couple of new modifiers added, although it can make the method unnecesarily complicated. I have not had time enough to go deep on it, but I´ll try in some moment.
Fergus, I have tried to mean 'clear, by argued reasons'. But returning to the point, I am now contrary to drastic changes in a rating after a single game, even when a low rated player beats a very high rated one. There are many factors that can produce it, including forfeit or stopping in the middle by any reason, and one game can´t be so decisive. I agree with tuning the modifiers, but I believe this is not a very easy task.
Reliability and stability may be tuned, but it must be made in base to ideals for the purposes. These ideals are not so easy to stablish quickly, and perhaps some probalistic considerations may help. For me, at first appretiation, when a 3000 player loses against a 1500, the 'rating lose' must be more that when a 1500 loses against other 1500, I can´t say in five seconds how much must be in both cases, but the difference between the first and second case must be relatively notorious.
Neutron 45. Variant of the game Neutron on a 45-squared board. (7x7, Cells: 45) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hace you tested this game?. How long are, in average, the games?. What comparissons can be made with 'classic' Neutron?. I have not tested it yet. Is a ZRF available?.
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think GCR works very well with the asumption that a player is not going to diminish a lot his abbilities quickly, say, from a day to another. But if it happens by any reason, the method has the same problems of ELO, and it can be more pronounced in GCR, if the player has a high number of games rated before and his rating is relatively solid-estable: the player´s rating may diminish slowly, and it can´t reflect the real change appeared in the player´s abbility. It is not a secret that Kramnik has some health problems, and it has been reflected in his playing abbilities, but ELO has take it into account after many months and many games played. GCR is, perhaps, even less sensitive to reflect such cases.
I agree with Antoine: basically, recognized variants or variant that have been played on Tournaments must be considered for rating purposes. The reasons are various, but the main are that some variants can be considered rich enough, stable, balanced, deep and good for game play, without a clear 'a priori' advantage for one player or the other, or with a clear tendence to draws, or extremely sensitive to openings, or not very related to Chess, or very large in such a way the games are kilometric, or very little and the game result is not relevant, or chaotic enough for rate the players after a game in such a way the rating makes sense. But other games may be also considered, if there is consense. In every case, I consider that NOT ALL games may be subject of rate the results, by many reasons, depending on the game.
The information must be expanded adding drawn games. By example, 10 victories + 6 draws + 4 loses may be indicated as 13 points/20 games. A player that shows 20 draws in 20 games has an effectivity of 50%, but it is indicated as 0/20, and it distorts the information. I´m not enterely convinced of the goodness of the method, but I think it is, at first view, reasonable, and I understand the intention with some modifiers present in the algorithm, but I´m not very sure they are solid enough or the best possible. The experience or tests can show more about it, also showing the strong and weak points. It is too soon for me to say much more, or to compare it with ELO, but when I have some time, I´ll try to go more deep on it. One point of serious discussion is whether a rated player must lose rating when defeated by a less rated player, and if the response is accepted to be YES, how much must be the lose?. ELO is a relative measure, it works in that way, and experience has shown it is almost perfect in this way, considering the opinion of experts. The cause may be due to the fact that, at good leveles of play, luck is not of extereme importance, but for us, with a lot of games in which theory does not exist, luck is a factor, undoubtely, for many games: you can lose in the opening, regardless you are a moderately solid player in many other games.
The intention is good, but the main problem is that you are gathering apples, pears, mangoes and kiwis together, and the method does not make sense if some details are not well considered. What are we trying to rate?. If we are trying to measure multi-variant skills, the method does not work. By example, a player and his 6 y.o. son may decide play 'AMAZONS', and they decide play only between them. Suppose the father is much more stronger than his son, but nothing special. Luck can´t help too much in this game, and, after a couple of months we can have, as the best rated player in Game Courier, the father, after 120 victories, and 0 loses. The highest rank in our site can correspond to a player that only plays a game that is not a chess variant, and the player itself is an average player, and only plays against a child. We need consider multi-variant games, and I can give similar examples as I did to show that not all games must be rated, only 'officially rated' games. By example, Tournament games or concertated rated games, and the multi-variant purpose must be considered, or decide apply the method to each variant independently, the mix makes not sense here in this way.
Plaese write the whole algorithm with all details, and I´ll try to analyze it more deeply. As stated, it does not look very clear, and some aspects may be subject of further discussion.
Gary is right, many games people have played have been coffe-games, test games or fun games in which result was not important, but it can be used for a 'first' number, as follows. This is s pseudo-ELO idea, and it can be good for us: At first, we need a 'preliminar' measure, but it is going to be modified after the first calculation, and it is going to be an adjusted measure with time, once all people is concious about how it works. The first number is A= 1000+ (Points/Number fo games)*1500, for everyone. Points is calculated as usual, 1 for win, 0.5 for draw. Number of games refers to LOGS in the last 365 days. After that, we can run an algorithm, sequenced by time, and in each game the rating is modified as follows: If player A has a highest rating than B, and he wins, his rating is modified with the added change rate= K*(2500 - Rating of player A)/2500. K is a factor, usually 1, but it can be modified in tournaments, to, say, 2 or 3. This change rate is also substracted of the player´s B rating. If Player B wins, his rating is modified with the added change rate= K*(Rating of player A - Rating of player B)/C. C is a number that must indicate how fast we need reflect the 'force change' in a player. I suggest C=100, and K is the 'Tournament factor'. This rate change is substracted from player´s A rating. In case of draws, the last rule applies, but with rate change divided by two. An unrated player is considered, at first, with a rating of 1000, unless he gives some evidence of another rating, and it can be used, translated to our scale. Try some examples, and you can see that this is a very reasonable measure.
Fergus, please revise the 'DRAW EFFECT' in your algorithm, I suspect there is a bug. Generally speaking, The method used IS NOT good, it is important the rating of the contendor to make changes in the RATINGS after the game, this is usual in Chess and other games. ELO is one of the best measures, and it has proven to be really indicative, as it has been confirmed by experience. You can see how, in some international tournaments, players of different countries that have never played before against others in the Tournament neither in the same other players environment or usual contendors, can play more or less according to the forces indicated by ELO rating. A good way to do it in our case can be assign, initially, 'preliminar ELO´s' according to the results in POINTS over NUMBER OF GAMES, using any reasonable function. After that, use ELO method over the history of the last 365 days, and it can be PONDERED by a factor, say 0.5, if the game is NOT a Tournament game. In this way, we can obtain a more reasonable measure. My Chess ELO has oscilated, over my past 20 years history, between 1800 and 1950. I don´t expect this is necessarily my rating in different CV´s, but I doubt it sounds reasonable enormous deviations from these values, and if you observe my results against some players better ranked with your method, you can think that something may be wrong, and by these reasons I have some reasonable doubts about the method used and its goodness for the purposes.
Altair. Altair is a modern game with an oriental flavor. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Soldier: Both Overtaker: Both Diamond Warrior: CH only Lion Man: Both Grand-Bishop: Both Mage: Neither Reducer: H only (moves as a Queen, so this is a consequence) King: Neither Grand-Cannon: Both Grand-Rook: Both That´s correct. Originally, I thought the game with ALL pieces (except the King) with CH and H movements. Posterior refinements after testing, made me take the decision of weaken some pieces, for a more strategical and better game play. YES, all squares are available if the movement is legal.
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]My record in th last 365 days is: 11 games won, 8 games drawn, 7 games lost and one game undecided. I suspect there is something wrong in the method used, but if it is not the case, I suggest adopt another method more indicative of the real performance. I also suggest a minimum of 1000 and a maximum of 3000.
Well, I am not sure how it works, but I suggest revise my rating performance. I have some doubts, perhaps it should be a bit under-estimated.
I consider text or Internet help (except Artificial Intelligence-aided help, of course) for openings may be legal in games like Chess, Shogi or Xiang-Qi by diverse reasons: the first is the nature of the slow-timed Tournament, theory help can act in favour of quality, at least before the middle of a game. The second, it reduces the advantage of very experienced players: they can use the theory by memory, others can´t. Chess and Xiang-Qi are very sensitive to openings, you can be considered lost, at least in theory, even in three, four or five moves, if you fail in correct first moves sequence. Theory exists, and people use theory by memory. I don´t see incorrect you can use books in this class of Tournament. Shogi is a bit different: theory exists, but the game itself is less sensitive to bad openings. Other opinions?
The Multivariant Tournament must be continued more or less as in the previous editions, I only object the fee, it should be better a free-inscription Tournament, I believe it can attract a few of new players. And for the Thematic Tournament, we can ask people to explore preferences. Particularily, I don´t see why not a couple or three thematic tournaments, in the case there are enough interested people to play on.
Joshua's Chess. Missing description (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It looks very playable at first appearance, and I guess it is a good game, by genetical reasons. What about a ZRF, to see?
For the Thematic Tournament, we can think in one of the following proposals: 1.- Shogi and variants tournament 2.- Oriental classical variants tournament (Shogi, Xiang-Qi, Korean Chess, Makruk) 3.- Shogi tournament (I guess good acceptance) 4.- Xiang qi (and variants?) tournament 5.- Ultima and variants tournament 6.- Grand Chess (and variants?) tournament 7.- Little board variants tournament I believe that 1 or 3 would be the main preference, based on observation, but we need the opinion of all interested on the thematic tournament.
Happy new year to everybody!. 2006 is here (well, in some places of the Pacific Ocean, for a while)
Hordes of Change - Sample Game. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Have you tested a simplified version of this game?. Is it a good idea (in game play terms and flavor) the simplification?
Regenbogen. Unusual spectrum-based game with Wizards, Clerics and Spirits. (Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]To see!. Yes, I think that the ZRF implementation could be challenging. The game itself looks interesting, but I have not had opportunity to make any kind of tests.
Storm the Ivory Tower. A Smess adaptation of Chinese Chess. (9x10, Cells: 90) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have not played Smess, neither Storm the Ivory Tower, but I have some problems with my vision and by this reason I have some troubles visualizing, in a good manner, both boards, although some simplicity and high contrast with colors of the pieces would be a bit better for my case. My eyes are far from 20/20, these games can produce me headaches, so I try to avoid them, unfortunatelly, regardless they look interesting.
Giveaway Chess. Taking is obligatory; the first player that loses all his pieces wins. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I don´t know whether some extensive computer analysis has been done for this game, the branching factor is by far much less than in chess. With the aid of actual technology, it seems to be a good project, perhaps factible, to determine if it its true of false the empirical suspect that the game is a forced win for White.
On Designing Good Chess Variants. Design goals and design principles for creating Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Is Amazons ('El Juego de las Amazonas') a Chess variant?. The answer is not so easy.
Spherical chess. Sides of the board are considered to be connected to form a sphere. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]See also 'Moebius Chess', by Menno Dekker from the Netherlands. It is played on a Moebius strip.
On Designing Good Chess Variants. Design goals and design principles for creating Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Interesting essay, with some author´s subjectivity in a few topics, but the 'artistic aspect' is left out without clear reasons. 'Beauty', 'plasticity' and other similar words are avoided, I know these are subjective aspects, but they are very important for many potential players, regardless they are suitable for being different from one player to another. Western Chess is a beutiful game, as Shogi, but the beauty is not only inherent to the rules, board size and pieces, but to the artistic quality of many games played or to be played, and this beauty is a mix of many aspects. Subjectively, any player can decide many times which game is more artistically valuable than other, independetly its opinion is not coincident with other. I can, by example, mention a lot of games 'artistically horrible', but it is my opinion, so I am not going to do that here.
3FewShogi Chess. Like Chess but 3 Shogi per side. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]May you give us a better explanation about promotions?. What are the possible promoted pieces in this game once a piece (Chess Pawn, Shogi Pawn or Flying Chariot) has reached the last rank?
If you like painting art, and you like chesss, visit the page: http://www.3ddali.com/ChessP/ChessP2.htm
Last round finished minutes ago. Eight finalists for finals: Bareev(RUS), Bacrot(FRA), Aronian(ARM), Grischuk(RUS), Gelfand(ISR), Gurevich(BEL), Rublevsky(RUS), Ponomariov(UKR). Magnus Carlsen was beated, finally, by Bareev in their particular match: 2.5-1.5
Only 16 are now. Eight are going to advance to the next round, but Ponomariov, Grischuk and Rublebsky have won and they are in the eight finalists. The 15 y.o. boy, Magnus Carlsen, continues with his chance to go in, but he is now the less rated player in competition. Results in this round: 1 Bareev, Evgeny (RUS) ½-½ Carlsen, Magnus (NOR) 1-1 2 Bacrot, Etienne (FRA) ½-½ Lautier, Joel (FRA) 1-1 3 Vallejo Pons, Francisco (ESP) ½-½ Aronian, Levon (ARM) 1-1 4 Grischuk, Alexander (RUS) ½-½ Kamsky, Gata (USA) 1.5-0.5 5 Dreev, Alexey (RUS) ½-½ Gelfand, Boris (ISR) 1-1 6 Gurevich, Mikhail (BEL) ½-½ Malakhov, Vladimir (RUS) 1-1 7 Sakaev, Konstantin (RUS) 0-1 Rublevsky, Sergei (RUS) 0.5-1.5 8 Van Wely, Loek (NED) 0-1 Ponomariov, Ruslan (UKR) 0-2 Pronostics are not so easy, but in the tiebreaks of this round, all are going to play rapid games, this fact can get some advantage for 'fast' players, like Gelfand, Bacrot and Vallejo... And I think Bareev can beat Carlsen.
Multi-King Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thank you, David. Yes, the mentioned Shogi rule for promotions would be interesting, in the sense it can allow a player put a promoted piece (to King) in a safe or an offensive square, depending on the circumstances. I´m convinced that yours is a rule in perfect harmony with the spirit of the game and it is an improvement, so I´ll adopt it. Credit is yours.
Thanks, Doug. Updated page, with an answer to your question about if a King can move to a square in which it is in Check. I think yes.
Sigma 4 Shogi. Missing description (7x7, Cells: 49) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It seems pretty interesting, although I have not played it yet. Intuitively, I only have doubts about the up-to-four stones on the basis, there are Camels and Zebras in the game, so power should be innecessarily high for a 7x7 game. I have to make some tests to see.
Ladorean Chess - Shaco Ladorean. Variation on Capablanca's Chess. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Some 'Ladorean words' used have some simmilitudes with Esperanto. Is this language a kind of fictional dialect?
Game Courier Tournament #2. Sign up for our 2nd multi-variant tournament to be played all on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX! Chess. A game designed to be as different to chess as possible while still being the same as chess. (1x72, Cells: 72) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Other possibility: The player who missed the 'Ouch!' lose the game after the other player´s claim. It can provoque an 'Ouch!', but it would not be valid at that time.
Shatranj of Troy
. A Shatranj variant with Shogi-like drops, a Trojan Horse (with 6 pieces inside).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Shatranj of Troy is a very nice game. I like it. The ZRF is not very strong, as usual with games with drops, but it can offer very interesting games for the player. Some Shogi flavor, it was an excellent idea of Gary, the limited power of pieces makes this game very good for the drop concept.
Limited Ranged Guards Chess. A game with some limited queens/guards and tanks to shoot opponent. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Tank and Bomb movements seem too slow for a 10x10 game. Please explain Tank power, apart from pushing: Is it 'rifle' capture?
Shatranj of Troy. A Shatranj variant with Shogi-like drops, a Trojan Horse (with 6 pieces inside),. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Nice idea, Shogi is great by many reasons, but the relatively low power of many pieces is a special element of interest when there are drops, and Shatranj looks excellent for this purpose too. I have to play it to see how it works. My only observation: I prefer that after a Horse of Troy capture, it changes sides, but its contents are lost, i.e., it transforms to a single Knight.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Long Leaper movement is well described in this pages. 'Leapers' could be the initial idea, in the early Baroque game, although the 'modern' ULTIMA has accepted Long-Leapers instead of single Leapers. Other rules could have historic importance in the evolution of the game, and it has its merits, so if there are fans of these rules, it should be considered normal, as they are Shatranj fans today, by example
Ultima is a great game, regardless some details... And, regardless the opinion of its inventor, Ultima fans love the game as is. Particularilly, I prefer Maxima, Fugue and Rococo, although I have to say that these three games are very different in the dynamics and game play than Ultima, and very different each one to the other two, although all of them were somewhat inspired by ULTIMA.
Ultima is a relatively popular game (much less than Chess, of course, but more than many people think), I am an 'experienced' relatively good Ultima player (but far from master level, I think) and I have played it since many years before I knew about TCVP. It is played around the world, and it is played as described in this Pages almost everywhere, at least as I know. Usually, Ultima players are not gained for changes in the game, and once I have received hard words from an Ultima fan by my proposed 'Ultimatum', a game that was thought to be, in essence, a supposed 'improvement' of Ultima. Rococo is not an unknown game, it is eventually played by some Ultima fans, although it is less popular than Ultima. Rococo fans seems to be also contrary to changes in the game.
Game Courier Tournament #2. Sign up for our 2nd multi-variant tournament to be played all on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]When are we going to continue with the Tournament?. According to my calculations, Gary Gifford is going to be the winner, independently of the other results, but I suppose all the rest want to play the remaining games. Congratulations, Gary!.
I think all players have to play 1 or 2 games more, but I am not sure. I don´t have confident statistics on hand, although it is clear that Gifford is ahead, and it appears he is followed by Fourriere, Kaufmann, Duniho and Lavieri, very probably in this order, and I am not sure about the exact points for each one.
Are we waiting for the end of the game Gifford-Joyce to continue with the last round?
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.