Comments by LarryLSmith

Here's an idea. How's bout applying Shogi drops?

Such would count as a move during the turn, and the introduced pieces would be placed in any vacant cell adjacent the activating Chief.

Games with multiple moves per turn will seriously bog down most search
algorithms. The increased potential of field positions does tend to
exponentiate.

What can 'assist' these plodders is some form of 'intuitive' step in
the depth search? Intuition being the ability to reach conclusions with
incomplete information.

[Somebody has probably already done all the following, but I merely give
them as an example.]

Humans(most anyway) look beyond their current move toward a position which
often there may not be a clear path. Sometimes this is simply a desire
which motivates the play and may actually never be achieved. A programmer
might accumulate enough data to create a database of 'favored' field
positions which the 'AI' could then use to influence its overall play.

Another 'intuitive' leap could be the assumption that a series of turns
would involve a specific number of pieces. Focusing the search on a
specific series of moves and exchanges involving only these pieces. As the
ply depth increase, those pieces of this group which were removed from play
would not be replace by others which were earlier discarded(new pieces
introduced during the search, whether by promotion or changing sides, might
be considered part of this evaluated group). Of course, these groups could
not simply be made up of the 'best' pieces on the field.

There are many possibilities to these 'intuitive' leaps. Games can be
evaluated in a variety of ways. A programmer needs to think beyond the
linear progression of turns. Maybe a search engine which works
backward('seeing' a future position and attempting to un-create it to the
current position).

Thanks for the heads-up on the info, Omar.

Kinda thought the piece values would be based upon not only their rank(power hierarchy) but also upon their position in relation to the opposing pieces. For example, the Elephant would be a very powerful piece but the opposing Elephant could lower that value simply by being within its area of movement(and this effect could be mutual). Blocking an equal, or even lower, ranked piece could be considered an asset to its value. 

Particularly when it relates to Rabbits. Keeping the opposing Rabbits as far from their last rank could be considered a positive field position. So, not only the value of the Rabbit could be based upon its particular position on the field but the values of all the player's Rabbits could be used to calculate an effective field position.

And Freezing would also be a value. The piece which is 'frozen', and the pieces which is doing the 'freezing', could have their overall value(or simply a sub-value) modified by this condition. This could also be further modified by the positions of other pieces in relation to these.

I've already coded a ZRF so that the engine 'randomly' initiates a set-up pattern for both sides. This allows me to test out a large number of potential set-up patterns. Of course, the current code is rather dim, being able to only look-ahead a few full turns. But I can manually create possible positions on the field and see how they will play out(if I have a lot of patience).

A simple translation of this code into Axiom will be the first step of the project.

I used 'active' Pawns on both levels. Of course, this did get a little tedious during opening development. But here's an idea(not mine).

Dan Beyer created an interesting 3D Pawn which extended through the levels of the field, occupying the cells above and below it.

The same might be done on this field. The two Pawns which occupy the same positions on each level would move as a unit to the same destination cell of each level. But would be captured as individuals. This would mean that as a unit they would simply move as Mad Queen Pawns, but when one was captured the other is now free to exercise its 3D pattern in this game.

When capturing as a unit, only one of these two moving Pawns need take an opponent. Needless to say that if a friendly piece occupies the similar target cell of the other level such a capture would not be permitted.

This would speed up the opening while allowing a sufficient 'barricade' against the advancing opponent. And if the two Pawns were able to maintain their unit upon promotion, the player could gain two seperate power pieces. Thus assuring the players of necessary material in the endgame.

Of course, if a single Pawn moves to a similar cell on one level as another friendly Pawn on the other they would then be considered a unit and be moved as such from that point.

Just a thought.

Throughout history there have been occasions where persons have purged
society's database. Libraries burned, authors executed, inventions
destroyed. All for the reason of simplifying their existence and
controlling the common man.

Did this improve mankind's state? Or did this actually cripple mankind's
intellectual evolution? The latter was most likely the case.

Chess has evolved from simplicity to it current complexity. The thinking
person would realize that it will continue to evolve in complexity rather
than slide back into simplicity. If only to continue to challenge the
mind.

Whereas, before the last of half of the twentieth century, most people had little contact with others outside their direct environment. Their exposure to ideas outside that environment was rare or often slow to arrive. Now, with the Net, all those developing concepts which might have gone un-noticed can be presented to an enormous audience. To evaluate and/or play.

No one should be forced to appreciate any particular form of game. This
would be self-defeating of the concept of play. Which is a part of the very nature of humans.

Likewise, those who desire to either promote a particular form of play or
do not appreciate other forms should respect their fellow players. If they desire to apply particular parameters to the development of their
particular games, they are well within their rights. But to demand such
compliance from others is only a high state of hubris.

Consider a mind which has existed within a 'box', surrounding by what it
knows within this domain. If it is allowed to peek outside and view the
infinity of chaotic potential, it may recoil in fear rather than amazement(or amusement). Unable to accept or comprehend. Such a mind should not be harassed to accept such a challenge. Merely pitied.

Thanks for the kudos.[blush]

I will admit that Nemoroth had the strongest influence on this variant. Its interlocking conditions inspired me. But rather than make them 'painful' to consider, I opted for a more 'logical' approach to this interactivity. Not saying that I succeeded, just a goal.

Once again I've updated the rules for this game.

Let me first apologize to those who are adverse to unfinished games being published at this site. I primarily presented this form of play as an example of a game which would be difficult to get a computer program to play well. Obviously, these rule changes have reduced that difficulty.

Again let me thank Joe Joyce for the discussions which resulted in the modification of this game.

The game can definitely let a player recover from an error. Maintaining the exchange ratio appears to be necessary.

I anticipate that the current game I'm playing will exceed 70 turns. Looking at the potential of a hundred-turn game will often scare the impatient. ;-)

Has anyone determined the various combinations of pieces needed in the endgame? I like the pattern that a Minister and Dabbaba take when cornering the opposing King.

One way to influence a simple look-ahead is to establish goals within the
game. For example(just spit-balling here), the creation of a particular
Pawn structure. The engine would modify its evaluation of the play to
include achieving this particular condition.

Each of these 'goals' might be weighted for both priority and field
condition.

The engine can be easily 'tricked' by having the positive or negative
conditions of these 'goals' affect its evaluation of each plys. The
opposing player's achievement of these same goals can also influence the
evaluation.

There could even be the field position whereby the conditions and/or
priority of these goals may change.

I have updated the rules, limiting the number of Workers on the field for each player to eight.

With a little play-testing and a lot of discussion with Joe Joyce, it was determined that unlimited Workers always allowed the first player a significant opening advantage.

This restriction actually plays rather nice. With the limitation on Workers follows a limitation of potential introductions, so each player must consider these careful.

And this also brings the game closer to being quantified. ;)

Summoning allows the movement of pieces between the 9x9 and 8x8 fields. Notice neither Æther nor Codex are eligible to change fields.

The player's Æther would only negate the opposing Elements.

I worked up a Zillions implementation of Ecila several years ago. But
unfortunately the graphics were rather poor, so I abandoned it. I've
still got the code somewhere. I'll probably dig it out and try again.