Comments by nargott
Update rules.
Remove next rule:
- Elvish Knights and Elvish Bishops are exchanged with starting places: Knights stay on the files "c", "f" and Bishops stay on the files "b", "g" (need to defend all Elvish Pawns)
This rule was introduced because of Elf-Elf mirror matchup, having 1. Qc3 move attacking g7 Pawn (and opponent must reply 1.... gf6 or ef6, because if Qe6 then 2. Bc4!).
But this rule has influence to Elf-Human matchup, having 1. Rh4 attacking h7 pawn (and if 1.... g6 or Nf6 then 2. Bd4).
So I think this questionable rule must be cancelled.
Now I start to get new statistics of mathups, with Fairy-Max auto battles:
- at 1000 ELO (0.6 sec per 40 moves)
- at 1400 ELO (6 sec per 40 moves)
- at 1800 ELO (1 min per 40 moves)
- at 2000 ELO (10 min per 40 moves)
How I get these ELO? I have ~95% winrate FIDE chess White vs Black when 1st White engine has 10 times more time than 2nd Black engine.
At low ELO I can get statistics very quick and modify rules to balance sides for it. But at higher ELO I can get statistics much slower, and can just check if balance is OK or not.
~10 000 games must be played for 1% accuracy (~100 games has only 10% accuracy - even equal sides may play 60-40).
I think the only things to be modified must be promotion rules. For example, introducing limitation of Orcish Pawns to promote only minor Pieces, lower Orcish winrate from 58% to 52%. Now I think that Elves and Orcs are a little stronger than orthodox Humans (~+2% winrate) and this point must be fixed.
Also, the most interesting thing is getting Pawns and Pieces values (at different ELOs). By statistics and changing start Pieces I can get only starting values. For example, starting values of orthodox Knight and Bishop are equal.
But there is also mid values which can be used at middle-game exchanges (theoretically, these mid values are best values for Fairy-Max engine, i.e. with these values Fairy-Max must have maximal winrate (vs engines with other values). For example, mid values of orthodox Bishop will be greater than orthodox Knight, because having less Pieces and Pawns at the board than at start.
It was surprising for me, but as it has appeared, that a pair of Unicorns can ckeckmate a bare King without the help of the own King, like a pair of Werewolves. The demonstration of this: Unicorns
Update rules:
Guards (Orcish Pawns) can promote only to minor pieces: Werewolves (Orcish Knights) and Harpies (Orcish Bishops).
Update statistics:
Human-Elf: 49,2% (human) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Elf-Human: 48,1% (human) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Human = Elf, 48,65% (human) by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)
Human-Orc: 48,2% (human) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Orc-Human: 47,7% (human) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Human = Orc, 47,95% (human) by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)
Elf-Orc: 50,3% (elf) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Orc-Elf: 48,1 (elf) by 500 games (+/- 3,5%)
Elf = Orc, 49,2% (elf) by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)
Update units' power:
King: Hero = 3.0
Queen: Angel = 9.8
Rook: Griffin = 5.0
Knight: Knight = 3.3
Bishop: Monk = 3.3
Pawn: Footman = 1.0
Queen: Dragon = 9.0
Rook: Wyvern = 4.8
Knight: Werewolf = 3.9
Bishop: Harpy = 2.9
Pawn: Guard = 1.1
Queen: Phoenix = 8.6
Rook: Pegasus = 5.1
Bishop: Ranger = 2.2
Knight: Unicorn = 4.1
Pawn: Sprite = 1.2
Overall:
Human = Elf
Orc > Human/Elf by 0.6 pawn
I think that there are two good ways to balance Orcs:
1) Orcish pawns promote only to Nightriders (special unit) but it seems as too big nerf, or
2) Orcish pawns promote only by simple turn (don't promote automatically)
In both cases I need to configure promotion at Fairy-Max.
Current statistics with Fairy-Max:
Human-Orc: 40,1% (human) by 500 games
Orc-Human: 43,6% (human) by 500 games
Human < Orc, 41,85% by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)
Elf-Orc: 42,3% (elf) by 500 games
Orc-Elf: 40,8% (elf) by 500 games
Elf < Orc, 41,55% by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)
Human-Elf: 49,2% (human) by 500 games
Elf-Human: 48,1% (human) by 500 games
Human = Elf, 48,65% by 1000 games (+/- 2,5%)
Unit's power by statistics (500 games per unit):
Hero = 3.0
Footman = 1.0
Knight = 3.25
Monk = 3.5
Griffin = 5.0
Angel = 9.5
Guard = 1.15
Centaur = 3.1
Werewolf = 3.85
Wyvern = 4.7
Dragon = 8.7
Fairy = 1.2
Hunter = 2.4
Unicorn = 4.05
Pegasus = 5.2
Phoenix = 8.2
Eagles are bad because there are Griffins (Human Rooks), which are hybridize eagles. Ents are good, but require redefining all the Rooks from flyers to something siege. There is no problems for Orcs because of Cyclops instead of Wyverns. But there is a problem for Human, because the closest analogue is Elephant (instead of Griffin). As an alternative there is a (sieged) Tower, usually associated with the Rook (by image), but I'm not sure that it is a good unit.
In general, there is a very interesting idea to use exactly Tolkien's setting, but I'm afraid that I haven't enough imagination to find matching units for all 3 races.
If I'll want to make Elvish Pawns have leaping push like spartan pawns:
h:70 15,E4 17,E4 16,5 15,6 17,6
E4 means this leaping push?
If I'll want to make Orcish Pawns have promotion only to Nightriders (unique unit, which is absent in starting army), then I would put the Nightrider to #7 (or #9 black), moving the Orcish Queen to the end of list, it will work correctly?
I think that promotion to Nightriders is "positive" nerf making Orcish games more interesting than standard promotion (to Dragon usually). And this is better than a ban of castling or a single ban of promoting to Dragon. I like Nightriders but as a rare option, not at starting army (because it is upgraded Knight and have difficult move). It is interesting that although Nightrider is stronger than a Rook/Wyvern, it can't checkmate a bare King (need the second Nightrider). The same story with the other Orcish Knights - Werewolves.
I also love your pieces, specially the Werewolf and the Unicorn that are new to me.
Thanks, they are very basic units, because the move of orthodox Knight often explained the same way as moves of Werewolf and Unicorn are. But the Knight is jumping over the first square, while the Unicorn/Werewolf can stay there.
Werewolf/Unicorn were the first invented units but later Pegasus became my favourite unit, because its movement is very easy but its abilities are wonderful and I was very surprised why there are many such units as R2, R3, R4, R5 which are only weaker versions of Rook, but no one is jumping R3, although the Pegasus is the strongest basic orthogonal leaper which is balanced (jumping R4 is imba on 8x8 boards). Pegasus is a real antipode of Rook (Griffin), playing on the same lines but by the opposite way, preferring closed rather than open lines.
The "jumping rook" and "jumping bishop" pieces are known as "ski rook" and "ski bishop" (think of ski jumping!) for a long time, for a reference see, e.g., here: http://www.mayhematics.com/q/mccs.htm
I was very surprised when I didn't find the same pieces in fairy lists, because in my opinion they have very simple, almost basic, mechanics of move, much easier and more obvious than most fairy pieces. Someone had to invent something like them.
Since your Chess Variant is a themed or Humans, Elves and Orcs, some artistic freedom in piece nameing is generally granted, But I think you are going overboard in renaming the Human pieces (the standard Chess pieces) only to create unnecessary confusion.
I like orthodox pieces but don't imagine what the Bishop, Rook and Queen do at the battlefield and why they are battle units? I understand that the orthodox pieces are likely to retain their old names, but still suggest alternative names. On the other hand, orthodox names may be used and reserved as type names, for example Griffin, Pegasus and Wyvern are Rooks.
Also, the name Phoenix is given traditionally to another piece (WA) and should not be reused.
Yes, but I can't imagine any other unit as elvish "champion". Maybe the Dragon, but the Dragon is already used by Orcs. The Pegasus is almost ideal alternative, but it makes the Angel and the Dragon incomparable with them and need to find extra new names (and for the Elvish Rook too).
A Centaur is usually understood as a KN compound piece (also known as knighted King or crowned Knight). The piece you name Centaur is usually known as Ferfil (Fearful being a wordplay on that) or as Modern Elephant.
I'm thinking to rename Centaur to Harpy, but doubt because the Harpy is the 3rd flyer unit (Wyvern, Dragon). The Elephant is bad because it associated with clumsy, but this unit is much more agile. The main problem of "usually known" names is the same as orthodox names - they are not thematic (if we include several pieces to the same army) and often not logic.
There is a huge number of different names of fairy pieces, and it is a problem for any developer. Because if you want to use, for example, the image of the Dragon or the Griffin to thematic army, suddenly you find that these pieces are already exist but they do not at all what you need for the game and for the balance.
The names are controversial, but at least now they are 100% relevant to the theme and how these units work (for all new people who don't know any peaces besides orthodox). I can't find another good names, to achieve two goals at once, that's why I had chose only thematic names. I'm opened to new suggestions for names, but thematic and logic are the most important aspects.
Maybe, I should rename Fairy to Sprite, and Pegasus to Valkyrie. Valkyrie is something that can be Elvish Queen instead of Phoenix, but which name give to Elvish Rooks?
1) This is surprising that Centaurs are much stronger than Hunters
2) These values can't be used as average powers because they show only unit's potential from the very beginning of game; the side which have better potential, have better chances commonly
3) The starting power of Queen-type units is really high, much more than 2 Rooks
4) These values (starting powers) don't correlate with average power, neither of orthodox pieces, nor of new peaces with my calculations, that's why better accuracy is not important, and I think I will stop on the 2nd iteration, 500 games per unit.
I have an idea for weakening Orcs, to deprive them of the right to castling, but at first, I need to collect their massive statistics before it and after it to ensure that this measure is really necessary.
At this post I will publicate and update statistics:
Pawn = 63,0% of 1000 games (+/- 2%)
Dragon (RN, Chancellor) + pawn f = Angel (Q), 51,9% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
Phoenix (BN, Archbishop) + pawn f < Angel (Q), 46,0% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
Exchanging the Queens also affects to pawns, so the advantage of Angel may be only 75% of the full, because other 25% difference pawns gains for the better promotion.
2 Wyverns (R>1) + pawn f > 2 Griffins (R), 54,1% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
2 Pegasus (jR3) > 2 Griffins (R), 53,6% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
2 Werewolves (N+) = 2 Knights (N) + pawn f, 52,5% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
2 Unicorns (Nx) > 2 Knights (N) + pawn f, 58% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
2 Hunters (B>1) + 2 pawns f/c = 2 Monks (B), 48,1% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
2 Centaurs (jB2) < 2 Monks (B), 39,9% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
8 Fairies (px) + Phoenix (BN, Archbishop) > 8 Footmen (p) + Angel (Q), 60,2% of 100 games (+/- 3%)
7f Guards (p+) + Dragon (RN, Chancellor) < 8 Footmen (p) + Angel (Q), 42,4% of 500 games (+/- 3%)
Current equalities:
Dragon = Angel - 0.6
Phoenix = Angel - 1.0
Wyvern = Griffin - 0.3
Pegasus = Griffin + 0.2
Werewolf = Knight + 0.6
Unicorn = Knight + 0.8
Hunter = Monk - 1.1
Centaur = Monk - 0.4
Fairy = Footman + 0.2
Guard = Footman + 0.15
I think that auto statistics can't be very exact, because of experience of other strategies shows that a balance depends on player's skills and styles. The balance will be different for grandmasters and novices, for humans and engines, with openings' books and endgames' tables and without it. But it is important to ensure that the basic balance of the matchups is within acceptable limits, 40-60% rather than 70% or higher. And the automatic tests can be useful for adjusting units evaluation as provide an alternative, machine evaluation as one of the approximate marks.
So I will test separate units by 3 iterations: 100, 500 and 2500 games (200, 1000 and 5000 for basic pawn evaluating), that gives an accuracy of 0.25, 0.1 and 0.05 per unit (0.05, 0.02 and 0.01 for pawns). Then I will launch 1000 games for each match-up and 500 for mirrors. Mirrors are important to get statistics about white and black balance. All games will be launched at the minimal time limits, 1 sec per turn, because it provides greater accuracy per spent time.
Overall (by the 1 iteration of test):
Hero = 3.0
Footman = 1.0
Knight = 3.25
Monk = 3.5
Griffin = 5.0
Angel = 9.5
Guard = 1.15
Centaur = 3.1
Werewolf = 3.85
Wyvern = 4.7
Dragon = 8.9
Fairy = 1.2
Hunter = 2.4
Unicorn = 4.05
Pegasus = 5.2
Phoenix = 8.5
Maybe, it's not an efficient approach, but changing and testing only the one type of pieces doesn't suffer from the openings as all different army. Also, I don't know how much evaluation of pieces affects to engine's decisions. Then it's better to get these values first.
In any case, it's more effective to test it by parts, for the first iteration 100 games per unit.
Hello! Thank you, but it's not hard for me, because there is only 10-15 units, not hundreds, which I usually work with. Hard are only limitations that I set: no any exotic peaces, no any strange extra moves and no any special rules. And now I need to understand, is it a perfect balance now, or not.
The automatic tests are interesting type of balancing tools, and it's a very big privilege to have it for chess, but it is unclear how they can be trusted and what limitations they have. Because the engine have features that may affect to results, or may not, and this is provisional, not real statistics of games played by real people. And for statistics there are very small numbers yet.
I think that I need 10k games per unit.
My aim is the balance not far than 55%, such as 52 +/- 2% in each match-up. There are 5 different unit's types: queens, knights, rooks, bishops and pawns, so for each type accuracy must be +/- 0,8%. And it equals 0.05 pawn per type (if pawn = 16%). "Per type" means the full complect (for example, 2 bishops or 8 pawns).
Have you tested this values for orthodox pieces? This is no important for balancing (because of relative difference), but good to publicating absolute values. And I know that this is only statistics, real values are dynamical and positional.
I think that if the Orcs will be the imba, the best way to balance them is limiting promotion of their Guards, for example don't promote to a Dragon. But the next 2 candidates, a Wyvern and a Werewolf are very closed, so Fairy-Max "promoting to only Queen" (where the "Queen" is one of that pieces #7 or #9) will not be as good as for natural Queen.
H. G. Muller:
I'm interested in your statistical method of evaluating pieces with Fairy-Max. But I don't know details and need to some advices.
For example, I want to evaluate Pegasus, then change 2 Rooks by 2 Pegasus and launch long series. If I get a result of winrate of 60% (for example), how to convert it to centipawns? And how long match need to played for accuracy of 0.25 pawn? 0.1 pawn? 0.05 pawn? Is it works if I set a fast timing limits of 1 sec per turn, or maybe better to use another timing limits for such tests?
How is better to test pawns if they have different options to promote (different versions of queens)? First test Queens, get values, exchange them and then test pawns?
Do you have results for famous peaces, like Archbishop, Chancellor and Elephant (jB2) on the 8x8 board? What about base (orthodox) pieces: Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen, King (as Man)?
I had saw that pawns' moves puts to hash as "c3" but with elvish diagonal pawns there are some different pawns able to move here.
Update: sorry, it was my mistake - I use the same file for different match-ups, they were not elves in that game. As I understand, I need to use different hash-file for each match-up.
It doesn't work (5.0b3).
Update: I add the string /sameColorGames 100 to the end of file winboard.ini and it seems to work correctly, thanks.
Maybe, it will be better, if the Fairy-Max will have not static, but dynamic evaluating of pieces, according the same criterias, that I use for balancing new units (you may read it at the end of main post). It is very experimental way, but if all weights are correct, an evaluation of positions will no depends on user's subjective values and mistakes. The basic idea is that the 60-80% of the piece's value is determined by its average attack/speed and can be pre-calculated at the beginning of game, but then add a positional part of values to each piece depending on it's current position, attacks and moves limiting by obstacles, activity (value of attacking squares), acceleration, agility and potential. There is no fact that it will work as universal, but if there is successful, it will be great.
Now, if any chess variant (with different armies) is imbalanced, there is no assurance that it is objective not only because of poor openings but because the engine makes decisions depending on evaluations of positions, which depend on the user's subjective values of his own pieces.If the user is wrong by his values, then the engine is wrong by its evaluations. And I believe that adding right positional criterias make the openings much better without dependings on the openings book. Because any passive openings like c3 or d3 will impair the positional power of own pieces, blocking their current moves and abilities. For example, move c3 kills orthodox Knight's potential to attacking squares d5 and a4, limits its speed and agility (moves x threats) to attacking b5 and e4 and commonly is the very bad move, except cases that square of d4 is under opponent's attack and it is important to defend this square or to prepare active move of d4 (not d3). There is no need to calculate any deep variants to understand for the engine that this move is terrible.
Maybe, it will be better to create position's evaluating special config, in which user can define values of many position criterias (weights) if he want to correct the engine's playing style.
And the next idea is to improve endgames by learning the engine any type positions. For example, user edit the position, place some pieces and then launch the analysis and the program automately generate "Nalimov's tables" for the endgames with these peaces. I find that now the engine have several problems to checkmating a bare king with the Wyvern or even with the several Queen-type units (sometimes make stalemating instead checkmating), although this is a problem only if there is very fast timing control. But as for me, it's very interesting to explore the endgames of Dragon (Chancellor) versus Griffin (Rook) and many others with new units, because these endgames haven't any existing Nalimov's tables yet.
What do you mean by "game analysis indicates"? The result of the game is an objective measure, but any reported score merely reflects what you put in, in terms of piece values.
An objective measure if the openings are right. Game analysis means that value indicated by game engine if switch to analysis mode. Maybe it's a problem of fast timing control but at the 10 minutes to 40 turns engine plays closed and passive openings too.
All pieces values summary are equals, scores differ because of the position advantage, activity or abilities to get material advantage, which are maximum for elves and minimum for orcs at the openings.
As I had read, the first 3 turns are "random" but this random can't be objective because players play openings to get an advantage and to use the strong abilities of their pieces. Openings like 1.c3, 2.d3 are not that openings which is actual.
There will be not important if all 3 races have equal opening's abilities, but they haven't.
Originally, I had think that such passive style means a bad design of new units, but when I had launch Human-Human mirror (or Orthodox chess), I saw the same style.
About saving results into the file - thanks, I will try it.
There is an example of auto game Human-Human at 10 minutes:
1.Nf3 d5 2.c3 c6 3.d3 Be6 4.Nd4 Bd7 5.Bf4 Qb6 6.Qb3 f6 7.Nf3 Na6.
Can white realize their tempo advantage playing this style? No. And elves and humans can't also (versus orcs).
I think that elves have advantage at openings, orcs - at midgames, and humans - at endgames. Both elves and humans can't get enough advantage from openings, but orcs get full advantage at midgame, because the engine is much stronger at midgame.
Maybe, adding openings base will fix this situtation, but it's not objective. I think the program shows that the maximum advantage of the Orcs is about 0.5 pawn (if all openings are passive), and only multiplayer statistics can get more detailed estimatings, including full value of the openings.
For example how quickly elves may evolve an initiative, the game vs Humans:
1.ec4 d5 (with favorable exchange: Footman is weaker than Fairy)
2.cd Qxd5
3.ce4 Qg5 (blocking Ne2 due to Qxg2)
4.Be3 Qg6
5.Qf3 Nd7
6.d5 Qd6
7.Ra4 b6
8.Be4 Rb8
9.Bc6+ Kd8
10.Rxa7 Ngf6
11.Ra8+ Rxa8
12.Bxa8 Bb7
13.c6 Bxa8
14.b7 Bb7
15.Qxb7+ Ke8
16.Qxd6 ed
17.Ne2 with a significant advantage
Or another variant:
10....Bb7
11.Rxb7 Rxb7
12.Ba4 Nc5
13.c6 Ra7
14.Bxc5 Qxc5
15.Ne2 Rxa4
16.b7 Nf6
17.Nd4 Qxc1+
18.Ke2 Qc4+
19.Kd1 Qd5
20.Nc6+ Ke8
21.Qxd5 Nxd5
22.c8Q Nf6
23.Nb5.
I don't check all variants, its a simple illustration of elvish style how it can be at the openings. You may see these variants:
first demo
second demo
About Fairy-Max:
I have tested 200 games for each non-mirror match-up (100 white + 100 black) and have got this statistics:
Elf < Human 46,25%
Elf < Orc 40,25%
Human < Orc 38,25%
It seems to be: Orc > Human > Elf, but the game analysis indicates that Elf > Human > Orc at the openings. And it is logically, because Elves have more active Pawns and the Orcs have less. That's why the Elves and Humans must be initiative but they don't, prefer to passive openings. They don't get any advantages in space, and Orcs, after the opening without any problems, punish them for their passivity. The Orcs have equal statistics playing white and black, it only confirms their weakness in the openings (potential but not real in auto games).
And this is a problem (and the feature) of asymmetry, different sides mean different opening's speed. If we will skip openings playing passive style and our side have an advantage at openings, then we will lose this advantage.
Without strong openings I can't get an answer to the question: are the Orcs imba, or not?
I have tested games at the time control of 1 sec per turn because each game need to be manually shown and I have no time to watch a lot of games in a long time. The WinBoard have a serious bug to incorrectly counting the wins and loses in the match of the same engines. It may show 20-20-10, but really there was 30-10-10 (if manually watching the games).
For example of opening's advantages:
- Elves have active Bishops from the very beginning, such moves are available and not bad (vs Human): 1.e4 - Bf4!
- Elves have active Rooks from the very beginning, move like 1.Ra4 is available (vs Human), the Orcish Wyverns may also leaping there, but only the Pegasus' move is good (because creates a real threats of Rxa7 or Ra5 - Rxa8)
- Elvish Knights (Unicorns) are centralized and can quickly enter the game through the squares of e2 and d2 (although not quickly as Human Knights), but Orcish Knights need to free squares f1 and c1 first (need to starts with their Bishops).
- Elves don't need to activate their Bishops, they are already active! Elves even don't need to move them for castling, because even simple Kf1 and then, if necessary, Re1 (leaping over the King and the Bishop) do the same, but faster.
- Orcs have problems with their short Bishops, because Be3 or Bd3 may block central Pawns (much more important than f и Ñ after Human Knights moves Nf3 or Nc3).
- Elvish Pawns have many variants to enter the game, but Orcish Pawns lose all their defensive bonus when moving. Elves can checkmate Orcs at the first move: 1.g3?? Bxg3#
To H. G. Muller:
http://hgm.nubati.net/variants/orc-elf/
Can you put all 9 match-ups for this variant into your online service?
There is all match-ups for Fairy-Max:
// Asymmetric Chess (Orc-Orc)
Game: fairy/Orc-Orc # P..R........NB..Q....Kp..r........nb..q....k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:125 -16,24 -16,7 -1,5 1,5
p:125 16,24 16,7 -1,5 1,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
# P fWscWifmnD
# p fWscWifmnD
# N WafsW
# n WafsW
# B FA
# b FA
# R yafWgafW
# r yafWgafW
# Q RN
# q RN
// Asymmetric Chess (Human-Human)
Game: fairy/Human-Human # PNBRQ.........Kpnbrq.........k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:100 -16,24 -16,6 -15,5 -17,5
p:100 16,24 16,6 15,5 17,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
# P fmWfcFifmnD
# p fmWfcFifmnD
# N N
# n N
# B B
# b B
# R R
# r R
# Q RB
# q RB
// Asymmetric Chess (Elf-Elf)
Game: fairy/Elf-Elf # ..B....Q......R...P.NK..b....q......r...p.nk
8x8
6 5 4 7 3 4 5 6
8 11 10 9 3 10 11 8
p:120 -15,24 -17,24 -15,7 -17,7
p:120 15,24 17,24 15,7 17,7
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
# P fFifmnA
# p fFifmnA
# N FafsF
# n FafsF
# B yafFgafF
# b yafFgafF
# R WDH
# r WDH
# Q BN
# q BN
// Asymmetric Chess (Elf-Human)
Game: fairy/Elf-Human # ..B....Q......R...P.NKpnbrq................k
8x8
6 5 4 7 3 4 5 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:120 -15,24 -17,24 -15,7 -17,7
p:100 16,24 16,6 15,5 17,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
# P fFifmnA
# p fmWfcFifmnD
# N FafsF
# n N
# B yafFgafF
# b B
# R WDH
# r R
# Q BN
# q RB
// Asymmetric Chess (Human-Elf)
Game: fairy/Human-Elf # PNBRQ................K..b....q......r...p.nk
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 11 10 9 3 10 11 8
p:100 -16,24 -16,6 -15,5 -17,5
p:120 15,24 17,24 15,7 17,7
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
# P fmWfcFifmnD
# p fFifmnA
# N N
# n FafsF
# B B
# b yafFgafF
# R R
# r WDH
# Q RB
# q BN
// Asymmetric Chess (Human-Orc)
Game: fairy/Human-Orc # PNBRQ................Kp..r........nb..q....k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:100 -16,24 -16,6 -15,5 -17,5
p:125 16,24 16,7 -1,5 1,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
# P fmWfcFifmnD
# p fWscWifmnD
# N N
# n WafsW
# B B
# b FA
# R R
# r yafWgafW
# Q RB
# q RN
// Asymmetric Chess (Orc-Human)
Game: fairy/Orc-Human # P..R........NB..Q....Kpnbrq................k
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:125 -16,24 -16,7 -1,5 1,5
p:100 16,24 16,6 15,5 17,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:500 16,3 -16,3 -1,3 1,3
Q:960 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3
n:325 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
b:360 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3
# P fWscWifmnD
# p fmWfcFifmnD
# N WafsW
# n N
# B FA
# b B
# R yafWgafW
# r R
# Q RN
# q RB
// Asymmetric Chess (Elf-Orc)
Game: fairy/Elf-Orc # ..B....Q......R...P.NKp..r........nb..q....k
8x8
6 5 4 7 3 4 5 6
8 10 11 9 3 11 10 8
p:120 -15,24 -17,24 -15,7 -17,7
p:125 16,24 16,7 -1,5 1,5
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
# P fFifmnA
# p fWscWifmnD
# N FafsF
# n WafsW
# B yafFgafF
# b FA
# R WDH
# r yafWgafW
# Q BN
# q RN
// Asymmetric Chess (Orc-Elf)
Game: fairy/Orc-Elf # P..R........NB..Q....K..b....q......r...p.nk
8x8
6 4 5 7 3 5 4 6
8 11 10 9 3 10 11 8
p:125 -16,24 -16,7 -1,5 1,5
p:120 15,24 17,24 15,7 17,7
k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7
n:420 1,043,-15 1,070,17 16,043,17 16,070,15 -1,043,15 -1,070,-17 -16,043,-17 -16,070,-15
b:275 17,7 15,7 -17,7 -15,7 34,7 30,7 -34,7 -30,7
R:450 2,3,1 32,3,16 -2,3,-1 -32,3,-16
Q:840 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
R:475 1,7 16,7 -1,7 -16,7 2,7 32,7 -2,7 -32,7 3,7 48,7 -3,7 -48,7
Q:810 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7
n:425 17,043,1 17,070,16 15,043,16 15,070,-1 -17,043,-1 -17,070,-16 -15,043,-16 -15,070,1
b:280 34,3,17 30,3,15 -34,3,-17 -30,3,-15
# P fWscWifmnD
# p fFifmnA
# N WafsW
# n FafsF
# B FA
# b yafFgafF
# R yafWgafW
# r WDH
# Q RN
# q BN
The only problem is that e.p. rights will not always be properly taken into account when comparing positions for the purpose of determining 3-fold-repetition draws.
It's not important for the most players, if this is no online-tournament engine.
Thank you for supporting new chess variants. Are you interested in programming the online-engine of lichess for this variant? I don't know how difficult is it.
To H. G. Muller
If we prefer the Pegasus as Elvish Queen then it will be clear inconsistency with the Angel and the Dragon and they also will be removed (but they are very strong fantasy figures). But the Phoenix by many sources is equal to that figures or sometimes even higher.
I think that we can save all the old names because this is not important for 99% players. For example, there is possible to be embarrassed that an elephant/bishop playfully runs along the diagonals through all the board, but because of this, very few people stopped playing classical chess.
About images, my opinion:
Dragon = Chancellor = Knight-Rook chimera (standard, don't change).
Phoenix = Archbishop = Pair of the swords (modern standard, don't change).
Hunter, Centaur = Bishop-types.
Pegasus, Wyvern = Rook-types.
Unicorn, Werewolf, Fairy, Guard = good like now, don't change.
About e.p. capturing, I think that there are 2 main criteria:
1) orthodox pawn could be correct
2) diagonal pawn could be correct (the current problem)
Everything else is unimportant because is extremally rare (and you may slow the engine for nonexistent pawns).
I'm thinking about changing names of the units:
Centaur -> Shaman (Bishop-2 leaping); he is a "spellcaster" like a Monk - classic Bishop
Phoenix -> Pegasus (Knight + Bishop)
Pegasus -> Phoenix (Rook-3 leaping)
What about this variant?
But in my opinion, the Phoenix is associated with much power than the Pegasus; and the Centaur (archer) is more warlike than the Shaman.
The logic of the old names was:
- The Pegasus (jR3) is leaper like the Knight, but is flyer/orthogonal like the Griffin/Rook
- The Centaur (jB2) is leaper like the Knight, but is archer/diagonal like the Hunter
- The Phoenix (Elvish Queen = BN) is simply a supreme, divine creature for the elves, like the Angel for Humans or the Dragon for Orcs
Are Guard, Pegasus, and Wyvern unique as claimed? Pegasus. Let's find out in follow-up.
Oh, I remember that:
Guard = Dog in the Space Chess (by Alex Erohno), but this piece is not famous in the Wiki.
The Dog can promote only to light units and can e.p. capture only other Dogs (because of equality with the classic pawn). But the Guard has standard promotion and standard e.p. capturing, because the asymmetry is not equality one to one.
I had updated my estimatings in the main post, with better accuracy, and added the "Unit's comparrison" article.
King: Hero = 2.7
HUMANS
Pawn: Footman = 1.0
Knight: Knight = 3.25
Bishop: Monk = 3.6
Rook: Griffin = 5.0
Queen: Angel = 9.6
ELVES
Pawn: Fairy = 1.2
Knight: Unicorn = 4.25 (heavy)
Bishop: Hunter = 2.8
Rook: Pegasus = 4.75
Queen: Phoenix = 8.1
ORCS
Pawn: Guard = 1.25
Knight: Werewolf = 4.2
Bishop: Centaur = 2.75
Rook: Wyvern = 4.5
Queen: Dragon = 8.4
2 George Duke:
These are other units, if you look closely. And when I sayed "unique", I add "within system", i.e. within these 3 races, with no repeating. For example, the Centaur is not unique outside the system, because is identical to the modern Elephant.
http://hgm.nubati.net/variants/orc-elf/ - you may see all these units how they work.
For example, the Wyvern is a rook always skipping and leaping over the adjacent square. It can't leap over the other squares, only over the adjacent square, then moves as linear. 100% leaping rook is the Pegasus but he is limited to range of 3.
One question, are the point values equal to 31 as they need to be? That leads to the Pawns.
All armies are equals each other, if you summarize (equals to 41 with pawns and without kings). 31 is the only estimated number of which depends on the accuracy of the estimate.
These estimatings are mine, and I can mistake at some of them. But totally, the engine shows that all armies are equal very much (in long series of games).
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Now I think that Guard (Orcish Pawn) must have promotion to Harpy (Orcish Bishop) only (earlier they can promote to Werewolf also). This is about 2% winrate nerf of Orcs.
Returning Rangers (Elvish Bishops) and Unicorns (Elvish Knights) to their natural starting positions ('c' and 'f' files for Bishops, 'b' and 'g' files for Unicorns) maybe is about 2% winrate nerf of Elves too.
In future, I will check update of race winrates (this will spend several days).