[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
This was interesting series. R>F 356-320 F>R 676 is subdivided into R>F 120-93 F>R 213 followed by R>F 236-227 F>R 463, the latter being less than 51% to over 49%. How would I value Falcon now in light of Muller's findings, that Falcon + King mates as it does and the above statistics. Initially Falcon > Rook until some number of pieces have been captured. Certainly by 20 pieces on board Rook > Falcon. The valuations at different stages of play by criterion of how many Pawns and pieces remain are in flux, as more scores get studied. Falcon of course is never in general so much as 6.0 to Rook 5, nor so low as 4 to Rook 5. As my inquiry seeks clarification, I guess it is same style of viewing in this series so of course please leave it in.
I decided to terminate the Falcon-Chess match (I had let it run so long only because I was away anyway) after 676 games, at a score 356-320 (53%). Although this seems only a small difference, this is always to be expected in symmetric playtesting: they start out with equal material, and not all games will have R for F trades. And even for those that have: when I ran games that were imbalanced from the outset (RR vs FF), I never saw more extreme scores than 57% (and for only a single R-F imbalance, that would be halved). Nevertheless, over this many games, a result of 53% is significantly different from equality. One side scored 36 more wins than the other. The standard deviation of the number of wins in 676 games is about 24. So the deviation translates to 1.49 standard deviations, which has only a 6.7% probability of occurring if the two engines were equal. So the conclusion must be that it is almost certain (more than 93% confidence) that it is better to value Falcons slightly lower than Rooks than to value them above Rooks (in a simple scheme that has fixed piece values throughout the game, like Fairy-Max). Current Fairy-Max has R=475, so I set F=450. (B=350, P=100.) I have not had time to watch many of the games. (I will study the PGN later.) Usually Fairy-Max is very materialistic: it has very little positional evaluation, and the diffence between having a Knight on a1 and on e4 is only about a quarter Pawn. If it lets undefended Pawns live, it is usually because they are heavily poisoned.
Ignoring PGN logs, we notice infrequent castling both g1 and h1. Over 600 games' 54% to 46% shows remarkable equality. Whoever first loses a R or F indicates whether R>F or F>R per side maybe 80% of the time. Also Standings tell whether it is odd or even game, as to which is F>R and R>F. In value, Rook is to Falcon as Bishop is to Knight, apparently. Characterize N,B & R as interacting. Likewise, N,B & F interact. Whereas opposites Falcon and Rook contrast, rather than interact. Even same-side R&F, keeping their contrasts, are hard imaginatively to try to get to ''interact.'' Orthogonal Rook's and multi-path Falcon's different ways are at each other's throat ever on opposite sides. The programs cautiously avoid mid-term Falcon forks in fear of logic of intervening blocks, that fail to materialize in real-world calculation by opposite number. Also, point-counting human player would tend to grab unprotected Pawn oftener, using personal 1.1 or more for the Pawn. [ Und deines Geistes hoechster Feuerflug Hat schon am Gleichnis, hat am Bild genug. --Goethe ]
I was out for the weekend, but I let the match run on unsupervised. When I returned I saw it was still going. I noticed that after 213 games, the program that values Falcon below Rook has taken the lead, 120-93 (56%). This starts to be significant: the statistical error in 213 games is only ~3%. So this is a 2-sigma deviation, meaning that it is highly unlikely (only ~2%) that it is better to value Falcons above Rooks.
Muller is aware of following, so for other readers> Not overstrong, Falcon is always second in value to Queen only, though arguably Rook and Falcon equalise the last moves endgames. With RNFBQKBFNR, the Knight cannot reach the unprotected Pawn in three. Cheops' FRNBQKBNRF is recommended by Abdul-Rahman Sibahi (his first choice RFNBQKBNFR with unprotected Falcon Pawn) and others. Without cornered Rook, Pyramids' FBRNQKNRBF also protects all Pawns. Templars' RBFNQKNFBR oddly protects them all preserving corner symmetry. One of the Falcon-centralised arrays is Osiris' RNBQFFKBNR protecting all. In Fairy-Max I like all the representations for play with no difficulty, but especially Falcon head (Game Courier has lesser head) setting off as it does Knight.
Sorry the link went down: stupid auto-updates rebooted my computer overnight... I restarted it now. And yes, it is difficult to find a satisfactory array where all Pawns are protected, because initially the Falcon can't protect anything. If one sticks to conventional castling and quasi-symmetry (corner Rooks and central KQ), the only possibility is RBFN. This is awkward, though, as it gives a bad conflict between developing the Knight and opening a diagonal for the Bishop. Plus the Bishops would look each other in the eye. It does not seem too bad, though, to have unprotected Pawns in this variant. The Falcons are not superstrong pieces, and also take time to develop. This much unlike Carrera variants, where the (BN) and (RN) can get into play and attack enemy Pawns on the first move, and are super-dangerous pieces even in solo action. In Falcon Chess, by the time the opponent can muster an attack on your Pawns, they are likely to have already moved to a completely different position. I would also be interested to have some feedback on the graphics design. In WinBoard I used the pre-existing Lance symbol (a wildcard piece, for which WinBoard accepts any move) to represent the Falcon. In the html page, I have of course infinite freedom, (the board is simply a table of gif files) and provided 2 alternative representations. But I must say I still like the Lance symbol best: it sticks out most clearly from the other symbols. Especially the bird-like symbol is difficult to spot. This might change if I would depict the entire bird, rather than just is head. I don't like that stylistically, though, as the Knight symbol also only depicts the head (as is the WinBoad Elephant). The Cobra symbol was inspired by the way the Falcon moves on a crowded board. It does not stick out as clearly as the Lance, but can still be spotted at a glance, due to its characteristic asymmetry. Problem of course is that it is not really compatible with the name 'Falcon', and that the C is already such an overloaded letter. The V is much less used, but a Viper does not make such a nice picture. S for Snake is both an available letter and compatible with the Cobra picture. But renaming the piece is a big step. A Lance also seems to have little bearing on a Falcon. Lance woud not be such a bad name for the piece either, as its moves stick through openings in the crowd to fairly large, but limited distance. Another interpretation of the symbol, however, could be a feather. With a vary small change, it could actually be made to look more like a feather, and it would stick out similarly as it does now. So I am inclined to stick to the Lance-like symbol, and say it represents a feather. A more detailed symbol set could make this more explicit. (Note that WinBoard_F does allow redefinition of piece ymbols, for thos not satisfied with the pre-defined bitmaps. All you have to do is supply a Chess font for WinBoard to render the pieces.)
Neat. Notice how often in the middle game Rook attacks Falcon, then Falcon moves to offense attacking the same Rook, their endless more or less equal interaction. Notice moving any Knight twice in the opening to the fifth rank is thwarted by many available defenses, despite unprotected Bishop Pawns the particular array. Notice these are Falcon moves planned, foreseen or subverted, able to be blocked chiefly by only two Pawns sometimes, but of course any two pieces too(sometimes). The ''sometimes'' is because even two intervening pieces/Pawns do not always secure the block against three-path Falcon. Pure leaping Falcon-Bison instead would be execrable mockery, of only average interest about like Amazon(BNR) or strengthened Nightrider(NN) or Squirrel(NAD).
OK, I finally got to setting up a live demonstration match. It can be followed at http://80.100.28.169/gothic/falcon.html Currently, you can watch a match of Falcon Chess there, between two versions of Fairy-Max: one programmed to value a Falcon higher than a Rook, the other programmed to value it lower. Let me know if the link works for you. George, let me know if you object to using Falcon Chess for this purpose.
Many thanks for the explanation. The relatively fast play is good to bring
viewers up to the present position.
In regard to any archived games, a method similar to that used here, would be nice, if not hard to implement: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044044
Note: At that link we see a java player that allows the user to click forward or backward in a game. The game shown is Fischer vs. Addison (Cleveland Open, 1957) Fischer was only 14 years of age.
Some buttons to pause and scroll through the game might be a good idea. You should realize, however, that it is only this fast because the full game is already on the server. If the game is actually being played, the rate at which the moves would be displayed is determined by how fast the engines produce them. So in a 5-min blitz game (300 sec), moves would come every 8 sec or so, which is 8 times slower than what you see now. If people on the average would still consider that too fast, we can play 10-min games. The fast playback mode is really meant only to catch up with a game in progress, when you first tune in. It seemed better to have the moves come by once a second, so that the spectator can at least get a vague idea how the current position originated, than to instantly flash the current position. But the display must be a bit fast to catch up with reality. Once someone is watching, he typically request displaying a new game as soon as the previous one finished, and at that point there are no stored moves to display. And it is a good thing that, as soon as people click the page, they immediately see something happen. If they would have to wait on average 15 sec for a move to be made, they might already have gone elsewhere. A 'slow replay' button might be appreciated, though.
I enjoyed watching the demo - but for me I would like to be able to slow it down. I wanted to look over the position but the moves just kept coming at a pretty good clip. I had no time to really think about what was going on.
Had it been a game I was already familiar with, that speed would have been fine.
Is there a way to adjust speed and pause play?
Anyway, I think your demo idea is a good one.
Now that there is talk about how to attract more attention for Chess Variants, perhaps the following is an idea as well. It could be implemented next to, and independently from organizing matches with GMs. We could put some pages on this website where there is live broadcasting of automated games of a few selected CVs between computer programs, say at 10 or 5 min/game, so that people can watch and get an idea of how the game is played. To get an impression of what I am thinking of, see http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/goths.html . In my experience, people that say they are not interested in Chess variants change their opinion quite easily if they actually see the variants in action. Watching Chess-like blitz games has a hypnotic and adictive effect effect on people anyway, they can't help but being curious at what will happen next. The demo above is just replaying a game I uploaded to the website at my provider's server, and there is no game going on at the moment, so the moves are not updated. If I would post the same page on my PC at home, where I have a game running, anyone clicking a link to the viewer page would get to see the game in progress being replayed at 1 move/sec, until it reaches the current position. From then on it would wait for the playing engines to append their moves to the file 'moves.txt'. The viewer periodically polls this page, and if there are new moves, it updates the display. The play can be fully automated, a new game starting as soon as the previous finishes, between the same engines, or in a round-robin tournament of many engines. In the latter case people would be able to request the current standings and cross table of the tourney. I have already run such tournaments for several 10x8 Capablanca sub-variants and for Knightmate, and currently am preparing one for 'Nightrider Chess' (a variant that is not even in this pages, but which some existing Chess engines do support, identical to FIDE Chess except that the Knights are replaced by Nightriders). So my idea would be to put a link in a prominent place on the chessvariants.com home page to a 'gallery of demo games'. This would lead to a page with some explanation of what people are going to see, and a bunch of links to computers of people willing to run the games, each a different CV. When people would click such a link, they would get a game viewer page like the demo above, displayed in their browser. This javascript-driven page, and the file with moves to broadcast the game, would be fetched directly from the gaming PC. (An alternative would be to install the viewer pages on the chessvariants.com server, and have the computers that play the games upload a new moves.txt file each time a move is played. This would require some alteration of the software, though.) Good candidate CVs for live demo games would be: * 10x8 Capablanca variants * 10x8 Falcon Chess * Knightmate * Shatranj * Courier * Nightrider Chess What do you think of this idea?
14 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.