Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think I need to clarify some tthings so you can understand me better. Anything in italics like this is something you wrote. So, let me make some minor clarifications:

The color-bound pieces imbalance (e.g., queen and archbishop both on dark or light spaces)

'Colorbound', for me, has a very specific meaning. I use Betza's meaning for colorbound: A piece that, for the entire game, always has to be on the same color. A bishop. for example, that starts on the white squares will always be on the white squares for the entire game, since it can not make a move going from the white squares to the black squares. Netither the queen nor archbishop are colorbound; both pieces can reach any square on a blank board in two or three moves.

As an aside, I like your using 'what squares can the power pieces go were they the only pieces on the board' as an evaluation criteria for evaluating an opening setup.

you have a vast number of positions to choose from (12,000+ according to Reinhard Scharnagl)

Actually, we only have 72 positions to choose from (see the beginning of this thread again).

Edit: It looks like the beginning of this thread got eaten, so, again: I observed that all of the various Capablanca opening setups proposed over the centuries have the following three features:

• Symmetrical with the rooks, knights, and bishops.
• The rooks are either in the corners or one file away from the corners
• The king is always in a center file

An undefended pawn can, with perfect play by white (the player with the first-move-of-the-game advantage) over a number of moves irrefutably result in a stolen pawn despite perfect play by black

As I recall, the evidence for that assertion was very questionable. An undefended flank pawn will not result in a proven win for white. It might make the opening a little more tactical; for example, in Narcotic Chess (RQNBKMBNAR), black might be forced to develop his marshall side knight in order to defend his archbishop pawn.

Again, please do not take my postings personally, and thank you for your insights.

- Sam

'I only think color balance for pieces matter if the pieces are colorbound. It doesn't matter to me what colors non-colorbound pieces end up on since those pieces can change color at will.'

The color-bound pieces imbalance (e.g., queen and archbishop both on dark or light spaces) is measurably a much more efficacious fault than the color-changing pieces imbalance (e.g., chancellor and archbishop both of dark or light spaces) although I classified both as 'minor faults' in the overall scheme consisting of only 4 distinct faults.

As measured by the movement capabilities for each power piece taken one-at-a-time on an otherwise empty board at its opening position [an ideal, potential maximum evaluation to reveal space-based imbalances rather than an actual, obstructed condition existing upon the very first move of the game by white], a color-bound pieces imbalance often results in a number for one color that is appr. twice as high as the other color in CRC. For example, 39 dark spaces can be occupied while only 20 light spaces can be occupied on the first move. So, it is NOT merely a trivial fault (instead of a minor fault).

A color-changing pieces imbalance typically only throws the numbers (from a total of appr. 55-59) out of balance by 2-4 more than they would otherwise be since a perfect balance never exists anyway with any CRC positions. Still, when you have a vast number of positions to choose from (12,000+ according to Reinhard Scharnagl), why tolerate this imbalance, either. Logically, I cannot tolerate the former fault. So, I will not tolerate the latter fault of a similar nature, either. Thereby, I maintain consistent standards for the model.

_______________________________________________________

'... I no longer think it's essential that each and every pawn in the opening setup is defended. I think it's a good idea for white to be unable to threaten mate on his first move, since otherwise Black can be prevented from making natural developing moves in the opening; having all pawns defended stops these kinds of threats.'

Yes but ...

An undefended pawn can, with perfect play by white (the player with the first-move-of-the-game advantage) over a number of moves irrefutably result in a stolen pawn despite perfect play by black. [{proven to us by someone}* using a powerful, multi-CPU computer with one proposed CRC opening setup.] Ultimately, this material disadvantage is probable to lead to the eventual defeat of black. This is too unfair to black. The potential amplification of the pre-existing and marginally, unacceptably-high advantage for white is the reason that an undefended pawn is unconditionally classified as a fatal fault for any CRC position under my system.

__________

'I am not sure every pawn around the king has to be defended two times or more. FIDE chess has had, for over 500 years, the King Bishop's pawn defended by only the king, and this has not stopped FIDE chess from becoming the most popular Chess variant that we will ever have.'

Yes but ...

Standard Chess is the most stable FRC position available.

[You can quickly verify this fact by creating a select FRC scheme in a likewise manner as you created a select CRC scheme.]

______________________________________________________

'However, I can see why one may not want these weakly defended pawns in a Capa setup, since there is 18 pawns more power (2 more pawns, the archbishop, and the marshall/chancellor) on the board than in FIDE Chess.'

Exactly.

My analysis of fault-free and faulty positions exists entirely within the relative context of what resources are available with a given piece set and class of games. Consequently, I demand higher standards of the CRC piece set on the 10x8 board defensively than of the FRC piece set on the 8x8 board.

Since I have only developed one tool to date, the select CRC analysis tool, I realize this fact was unexplained and undemonstrated.

_____________________________________________________________

Whatever piece set and gameboard with 100's-1000's of possible opening setups is presented, my goal is to customize a method to it by:

1. Focusing upon a highly-selective set of positions based upon your well-defined, easily-used criteria as potentially most favorable, interesting, least asymmetrical and worthwhile to investigate in detail- existing in a number manageable for one person in terms of the time and work required.

2. Applying an extremely-selective filter so that only one to a maximum of a few of the very strongest positions available survive with a rating of fault-free.

The very best possible game(s) out of the vast number within a class should exist there. This is due to the fact that the number of pawn backups (in chess variants related to standard Chess) impose mathematical limitations upon what is possible, despite the vast number of tactical, offensive multi-move options available, to effectively imbalance the game to the further advantage of white (the player with the first move of the game).

*Edited - JG

For example, I only think color balance for pieces matter if the pieces are colorbound. It doesn't matter to me what colors non-colorbound pieces end up on, since those pieces can change color at will.

As another point, I no longer think it's essential that each and every pawn in the opening setup is defended. I think it's a good idea for white to be unable to threaten mate on his first move, since otherwise Black can be prevented from making natural developing moves in the opening; having all pawns defended stops these kinds of threats. One of my proposals posted in this thread, 'Narcotic chess' (RQNBKMBNAR), for example, has an undefended flank pawn, but appears to be a perfectly playable variant. The original Carerra setups (RANBQKBNMR and RMNBQKBNAR) have the same undefended flank pawn 'problem', but again appear perfectly playable.

I am not sure every pawn around the king has to be defended two times or more. FIDE chess has had, for over 500 years, the King Bishop's pawn defended by only the king, and this has not stopped FIDE chess from becoming the most popular Chess variant that we will ever have. However, I can see why one may not want these weakly defended pawns in a Capa setup, since there is 18 pawns more power (2 more pawns, the archbishop, and the matshall/chancellor) on the board than in FIDE Chess.

One thing I like to see in an opening setup is a Chess-like arrangement of the minor pieces. One problem with, say, RNBQKAMBNR, is that moving the center pawns forward two squares blocks the diagonals of the bishops, and it is difficult to make the knights active players in the game. The nice thing about, say, RQNBKABNMR, is that the knights, bishops, and center pawns are naturally developed without getting in each other's way.

So, in conclusion, since I have my own ideals about the initial position of the pieces, I will come up with a different opening setup than other chess variant inventors may decide upon,

- Sam

Select CRC Analysis Tool
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc

The documentation has been expanded and revised so that the Zillions Of
Games program is no longer needed to view all of this information in
detail.

Description
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc/descript.pdf

Faults
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc/faults.pdf

Ratings
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc/ratings.pdf

Report
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc/report.pdf

Summary- 48 Games
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc/summary.pdf

Presentation- 48 Games
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc/48-games.pdf

When I searched-out Opti Chess, I expediently focused-in upon a select set
of only 24 CRC variants where the king & queen occupied the center files.

1.  Indisputably, the queen is the most valuable piece in the game (after
the king).

2.  I consider the queen the most capable piece at protecting the king
since the chancellor and archbishop can be threatened without reciprocity
from a large distance by sliders that move differently.  Specifically, the
chancellor can be threatened by the bishop and the archbishop can be
threatened by the rook.

Nonetheless, I was intrigued by your assertion that the 2 other composite
pieces (chancellor and archbishop) are worthy escorts for the king.  So, I
have been examining your select set of 72 CRC variants for a few days now.

Using more stringent criteria, I determined all 24 CRC variants centered
by the king & archbishop to have a minor fault due to the impossibility of
placing BOTH the queen and the chancellor on opposite-colored spaces than
the archbishop for balance.  So, I felt no need to examine them in further
detail.

The reasons?

1.  Composite pieces containing color-bound bishops (i.e., the queen &
archbishop) should be on opposite (light-dark) spaces for balance.

2.  Composite pieces containing color-changing knights (i.e., the
chancellor & archbishop) should be on opposite (light-dark) spaces for
balance.

This left me with a select set of only 48 CRC variants (24 king & queen
centered and 24 king & chancellor centered) that needed to be explored in
detail- half of which I had examined long ago.  Accordingly, I created a
*.zrf to chart my results visually and when finished, conveniently share
with others:

Select CRC Analysis Tool
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc

I hope you find it interesting.

In Falcon Chess we call '1 Ni1-h3; 2 -i5; 3 -h7' Fool's Mate because Queen or Bishop cannot checkmate in three like that with full help of Black. 'Helpmates' are Chess problems, started it says in 1854 by Max Lange in Deutscheschachzeitung, and of course perfected by Sam Loyd 1860 on. Both sides cooperate to checkmate Black. That's what a trivial Foolsmate entails from the opening, called a Helpmate if pieces already developed, but any win in fewer than 6 moves is surely a blunder. CVariantists are already admonished to avoid channeling openings to just few lines, on account of there being no net disadvantage to making mating threat from Move 1, by one (or maybe two)specific moves, in some of the ridiculous or overused initial set-ups and piece mixes ever under consideration.

There's a bug difference between a checkmate THREAT, and a Fool's Mate.
By definition, a Threat is : 'if you don't react accordingly, you're
lost'.

In RNBAQKMBNR , after 1.Mh3, which threatens mate, black is FORCED to
react. There are many ways, like moving a pawn around the King, which is
absurd; or advancing the King's bishop's pawn, which hardly a developing
move; or by 1.. Nh6 which gives white a very early pin, or 1..Mh6 which
leads to a very early exchange of Marshalls.

In Falcon Chess and Omega Chess, the threatened mate is a mate in 3, which
is less forcing than a mate in 2. It's easily refutable by very natural
developing moves that don't offend the sense of a chess player.

In chess, there's the famous Scholar's mate, which actually, with white
playing it, probably gives a weak position for white. While white moves
his queen around, black is developing, leading to a (=+) position.
Responding to 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 doesn't offend the sense of the chess player
the way the above-mentioned Capa variant does.

A Fool's mate is hardly worth discussion at all.

SRNSQKBNRB

PPPPPPPPPP
.RNBQKBNR.
S........S

And yes, Sage chess also works very nicely if we replace the queen by the Marshall (Rook + Knight).

Again, these are just proposed ideas. I'm not formalizing a variant yet. I'm waiting to see if Greg can add the Sage to ChessV. I also need to study the opening in Schoolbook more. :)

When Carrera's was invented, Shakespeare was still writing plays and
Newton was not yet born(1642). M. Winther writes, 'It is advantageous to
the opponent should White threaten mate in the opening,' in Teutonic
Chess, a new array of Carrera's Chess.  There's hardly a large Chess without
conceivable Fool's Mate in three, call it a threat or not. For example,
Falcon Chess 8x10. There, if White moves Ni1-h3, then -i5, it threatens
checkmate on the third move with the third move of that self-same Knight.
However, Black's simple reply Ni8-j6 stops the attack and faces White  with fork-mate threat in reverse, worsened by the i1-Knight's not being in place any more to thwart. So, exactly the same words of Winther apply, 'It is advantageous to the opponent...'

Sam, I still don't understand what you're on about. Anyway, I'm glad that you've stopped judging variants as inferior on the grounds that there is an initial mating threat. I removed my 'Teutonic Chess' from the Capa Wiki page, and from my homepage, because I think that this all is rather silly. Like I say on my homepage: 'It might seem superfluous to give it a new proper name when it is only a rearrangement of the initial position, but this is what people do.' Please don't insert the variant again. Even in a chess variants community there must be some limits to silliness.
/Mats

I have talked with my legal department, and they inform me that I must make a prominent notice in 6-point text that this entire posting is a joke. Failure to see that this is a joke immediately causes the person reading this to forefit their entire lifetime savings to me. Please make you PayPal donation here

And, oh, I have updated the Capa wiki page to list Teutonic and Energizer.

Sam, what are you talking about? Am only I allowed to label variants with
initial mating threat? I don't get it!
/Mats

Here it is:

QRBNKANBRM 1. Ag3 mating threat

RQNBMKBNAR Md3
QRNBMKBNRA Md3
RBNQKMANBR Mg3
BRNQKMANRB Mg3
QRNBKMBNRA Mg3
BRNAQKMNRB Mh3 (Capa 1)
RNBQAKMBNR Mh3 (Teutonic)
BRNQAKMNRB Mh3
RABNQKNBMR Mh3
RQBNAKNBMR Mh3
QRBNKANBRM Ag3

Sibahi: I did not get your reply. Did you get Jeremy's message?

I partially agree with M Winther. I have two points to say in this regard:

1. White forcing black to react from move 1 can give White a HUGE
advantage in the game. An example of this, since White's advantage in
Atomic Chess (which is played quite regularly in FICS,) is very well
established that you are not required to give a rematch if you win with
black!!

2. However, this factor didn't prevent Atomic Chess from being one of the
most fun playable chess variants.

Sam. the fact that a variant 'suffers from a 1st move mating threat' is
of no consequence. In Teutonic Chess this is no problem at all. It is
advantageous to the opponent should white threaten mate in the opening.
This form of analysis is too simplistic. It makes an amateurish impression
to list which variants suffer from a 1st move mating threat. 
/Mats

Greg, the zorkmid is also the official currency of Variantstown . See csipgs Chess, Introducing Economy in CVs and The Hitchhiker's Guide to Chess.

GUE $49.95 Zm?  Is that a Zork reference?

Hey, Sam! I can hardly wait! Do they come with a Certificate of
Authenticity?

For those unable to get in on Sam's generous offer, I propose Great
Shatranj, which is actually a Capa variant. This fine and highly-luminous
game, made with only the finest and most carefully-crafted synthetic
pieces, has ALL the starting setups available [except for the single
posted version - V#1, which I am keeping]. In fact, this is so new and
these synthetic pieces are so different, that even the rare Gothic variant
is available. That variant alone will go to the highest bidder. The others
are all currently available at the low, low price of GUE $49.95 Zm.

Here is an updated list of known proposed Capa chess setups:

RANBQKBNMR      Aberg                                                           
RMNBQKBNAR      Carrera                                                         
RNBMQKABNR      Bird                                                            
RNBAQKMBNR      Capa 1 (Suffers from 1.Mh3 mating threat)
RNABQKBMNR      Capa 2                                                          
RBQNKMNABR      Grotesque
RBNMQKANBR      Univers                                                         
RBQNKANMBR      Landorean                                                       
RNBQKMABNR      Embassy                              
RQNBAKBNMR      Schoolbook                                                      
NRMBQKBARN      Optimized                                                       
MRNBQKBNRA      Paulowich 1 link
ARNBQKBNRM      Paulowich 2 link
QRNBKABNRM      Paulowich 
RNMBQKBANR      Nalls link
RNBQAKMBNR      Teutonic link (1. Mh3 mating threat)

RNBQKAMBNR      Consulate  
RNQBKMBANR      Finesse
RQNBKABNMR      Notebook
QRNBAKBNRM      Closebook
RNQBMKBANR      Blackbook
NRABQKBMRN      Nightwink
RQNBKMBNAR      Narcotic

RQNBMKBNAR Md3
QRNBMKBNRA Md3
RBNQKMANBR Mg3
BRNQKMANRB Mg3
QRNBKMBNRA Mg3
BRNAQKMNRB Mh3 (Capa 1)
RNBQAKMBNR Mh3 (Teutonic)
BRNQAKMNRB Mh3
RABNQKNBMR Mh3
RQBNAKNBMR Mh3

QRBNAKNBRM RQBNMKNBAR NRBQAKMBRN RBNQAKMNBR NRBMQKABRN BRNMQKANRB RBNMQKANBR QRBNMKNBRA NRBQKMABRN RMBNQKNBAR ARBNQKNBRM RQBNKMNBAR BRQNMKNARB RBQNMKNABR NRQBMKBARN NRQBKABMRN RNQBKABMNR NRBAQKMBRN BRQNKANMRB BRANQKNMRB RBANQKNMBR BRNAQKMNRB RBNAQKMNBR MRBNQKNBRA QRBNKMNBRA RQBNKANBMR BRMNQKNARB RBMNQKNABR QRBNKANBRM NRBQKAMBRN NRQBAKBMRN BRNQKAMNRB RBNQKAMNBR RNQBAKBMNR BRQNAKNMRB RBQNAKNMBR NRBQMKABRN NRQBKMBARN BRQNKMNARB BRNQMKANRB RBNQMKANBR

So, aspiring inventors, don't miss out on this once-in-a-lifetime claim to be a Capa chess variant inventor. There are only 41 Capa setups left for you to claim! Get yours before it is too late!

QRNBKABNRM      Paulovich 3

David Paulowich

(not related to Paulovich or Paulovits)

Sam, you didn't include my variant, Teutonic Chess, RNBQAKMBNR.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/capablanca.htm
I think that Capa 1 (which suffers from 1.Mh3 mating threat) is playable. 1.Mh3 is, arguably, a weak move that achieves nothing, except putting the Minister on the same diagonal as the enemy bishop. Although there may be better alternatives than Capa 1, it's not certain that a position suffering from an initial weakness is inferior. A mutual weakness in the opening position may create possibilities of seizing the initiative, something which enlivens the game (but I haven't analysed this position).
/Mats

I like setup 4 best.

Thought : Wouldn't the Queen better be replaced by a Marshall ?