Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I tried to play the applet set at 4 or 3 ply, but it seemed too slow right at move one (I also was asked to stop a Script each time, early on, but that did not help). So, I played it at 2 ply (the default). I don't know how to post the moves I played with the diagram so as to be able to replay it (if that's possible), but here's the moves that I cut and pasted after the game (I had the White side - unfortunately the machine played somewhat blindly - maybe giving some small hope that huge CV Sac Chess can resist even some other engines for a while, vs. truly strong humans):

1. f5 Ji7 2. e5 Jj9 3. Ng4 b7 4. Bd5 Mb8 5. Bxg8 Kxg8 6. Nf6 Kf9 7. Qi6 h7 8. Nxh7 Jh8 9. Nxi9 Jh7 10. Nxg10 Jxi6 11. Nxe9 Kxe9 12. O-O Ch8 13. Bf4 Jj6 14. d5 Ji6 15. Nd4 a6 16. Rbe2 Jg7 17. Rgf2 c6 18. e6 d6 19. Bxd6 Md8 20. Bc7 cxd5 21. Bxd8 Kxd8 22. e7 fxe7 23. Ne6 Kd7 24. Axd5 Kc8 25. Rf4 Jh6 26. Adc5 Kb8 27. Aa7#

@Carlos:

I posted a game of mine vs. the Sac Chess applet in my previous reply, in case you missed it (it had my name given as 'panther').

Thanks, Kevin, I already read the game. It shows very well the dangers that exist since the opening. Playing carelessly Black enters after just 4 moves into a near-deadly whirlwind. Your style of play is clearly very aggressive trying to do as much damage as possible in the minimum amount of time.

I share 2 games that I played vs the applet imitating its style of play. The first testifies that the AI does make castlings. The second took a long time because I intentionally sought to reach a final of kings and pawns to test pawn's promotion on both sides.

1.Ng4 Jb7 2.Nd4 Ji7 3.c4 Nd7 4.Jc3 Ng7 5.h4 Mc9 6.Jh3 Mh9 7.e4 Jg6 8.f4 Jd6 9.i4 Nf6 10.b4 Md7 11.Mb3 Cc9 12.Mi3 c7 13.Bf3 Ne6 14.Be3 Jde7 15.Nxe6 Jxe6 16.Nxf6 Jexf6 17.d4 Mhg7 18.g4 h6 19.Cd3 Bh8 20.Cg3 O-O 21.O-O Ac8 22.f5 Jgf7 23.e5 J6e7 24.Ac2 Af9 25.f6 Jexf6 26.exf6 Mxf6 27.Cgf5 Mfe6 28.Cxi8+ Ki9 29.Cxg7 Bxg7 30.Mj5 Ch8 31.Jj4 Ad6+ 32.M°g3 Ade7 33.Jd5 Ad7 34.Jxe6 Jxe6 35.Cg6 Bxd4 36.Cxh8+ Bxh8 37.Ji6 Bxb2 38.Jxj8+ Kh8 39.Ai8#

1.Jb4 Jb7 2.Ji4 Ji7 3.Jh4 Ng7 4.Ni4 f6 5.Jc4 Mh9 6.Nb4 Af8 7.f5 Jd6 8.Jxd6 Axd6 9.Af3 Nd7 10.Ad5 Mc9 11.Axd6 Bxd6 12.e4 Jh7 13.Bf4 Cg9 14.Bxd6 Cxd6 15.Ch2 Mf8 16.Cd2 Ne5 17.d4 Nf7 18.Cf4 Mcd7 19.Cxd6 Mxd6 20.Mc2 Cc9 21.Me3 Cd7 22.g4 Ne5 23.Ac2 Cb6 24.dxe5 Cxe3+ 25.Qxe3 Mdf7 26.e6 Me7 27.e5 fxe5 28.Cxe5 Mexe6 29.Bf3 Me7 30.O-O Jf6 31.M°g3 Jxe5 32.M°xe5 Mff7 33.Nc6 Md7 34.Jg6 Mg9 35.Jf6 Mf8 36.Qxj8 b7 37.Nd4 d6 38.M°g3 Mxf6 39.Qg5 Mgf7 40.Qf4 Sg9 41.Ng5 M7d7 42.a5 Qxa5 43.Ra2 Qc5 44.Rxa8 Af8 45.M°b5 Ne6 46.fxe6 Mxf4 47.M°xc5 Mxc5 48.M°xf4 Axf4+ 49.Ki2 Mxg5 50.Ad2 Sf8 51.Axf4 Sxf4 52.Mh2 M°d8 53.Sd2 Rg9 54.Sf2 Sf6 55.b5 M°ee9 56.Be2 g6 57.Sxf6+ M°xf6 58.Rf2 M°eg7 59.b6 Sc9 60.Nb5 Mxe6 61.Nc7 Me4 62.Sc1 Mg3+ 63.Kj2 Rb8 64.Rxb8 Sxb8 65.Nxd9 Sc9 66.Nc7 Se9 67.Bb5 Sf8 68.c4 Md3 69.Sf1 M°ff7 70.Rf3 Me5 71.Sd1 M°ff6 72.Sxd6 M°xi3+ 73.Kxi3 Mxf3 74.Sd9+ Kf10 75.Sd10+ Kf9 76.Mxf3 Sxf3 77.Bxe8+ Kf8 78.Sf10+ Rf9 79.Sxf9+ Ke7 80.Sxf3 i6 81.Sf7+ M°xf7 82.Bxf7 Kxf7 83.g5 i5 84.Ki4 Kg7 85.Kxi5 Kh7 86.j5 Ki7 87.h4 Kh7 88.j6 Ki8 89.Kh6 h7 90.Ne8 Kh8 91.j7 Kg8 92.Ki7 Kf7 93.Nc7 Kg7 94.j8 Kg8 95.Ki8 Kg7 96.j9 Kf7 97.j10=A Kg8 98.c5 h6 99.gxh6 Kf7 100.h7 Kf8 101.h8 Kg8 102.h9 Kf8 103.h10=A+ Kf7 104.Af8+ Kxf8 105.Ag7+ Kxg7 106.Ki7 Kg8 107.Kh6 Kf7 108.Nb5 Kf6 109.Nd6 c6 110.Nxb7 Kf7 111.Nd8+ Kf6 112.b7 Ke7 113.Nxc6+ Kf6 114.b8 Kf7 115.b9 Ke6 116.b10=A Kf7 117.Nd8+ Kf6 118.c6 Kf5 119.c7 Kf6 120.c8 Kf5 121.c9 g5 122.c10=A gxh4 123.Acd9 h3 124.Adc10 h2 125.Acd9 h1=A+ 126.Ah5+ Axh5+ 127.Kxh5 Kf4 128.Ab4+ Kf5 129.Ad4#

Thanks for your description of my style, Carlos. I've tried to play in many styles (notably for chess) over the years, but I still find that at lower levels of skill than elite, aggression (if available in the position) often pays off most heavily.

There is a question I've had for some time now. 10x10 checkers (at least one variant of it) has been called 'International Checkers'. When naming Sac Chess, though it uses all the classic compound pieces, I avoided calling it 'International Chess' because Sac Chess was totally unproven as yet (besides that it would have been immodest). I did mention on my Chess Federation of Canada Discussion Board blog though that were Sac Chess ever to take off, I wouldn't mind if it were re-named to that instead.

Anyway, my question would be, has anyone more knowledgeable ever given thought to what characteristics a 10x10 CV should have, were it ever to be thought worthy of being called 'International Chess' (a name I find a bit ambiguous, incidentally, much like 'International Checkers').

I thought that 'International Chess' is already used as a synonym for orthodox Chess, to contrast it to variants with a clear regional binding, such as Xiangqi, Shogi, Makruk. (Which are also known as Chinese / Japanese / Thai Chess.) No one outside the tiny community of CV players would ever say 'orthodox Chess'.

And I never heard anyone speak about 'International Checkers'; everyone seems to call that 'International Draughts'. In Dutch we just call that game 'Dammen', no doubt a distorted form of the French name 'Jeu de Dames', and what you know as Checkers we call 'Amerikaans/Engels Dammen'.

The logical requirement for being called 'International' is that it should be significantly popular in a large fraction of all countries, without one country or continent having a much larger fraction of its population play it than any other. If 80% of the people playing it would be distributed (approximately proportionally) over European countries, it would be 'European' rather than 'International'. That doesn't really seem to depend on how large the board is.

So to be called 'International' it would have to be the one item of its kind that has the largest global spread. I suppose you could quantify the concept of global spread by defining it as the fraction of the population that plays it in the country that is half-way down the list that orders countries by this fraction.

Of course 'kind' is only loosely defined, but it refers to what the 'International' predicate is applied to. In 'International Chess' that would be any game that qualifies as Chess. If you want to restrict it to 10x10 variants, you would have to call it 'International 10x10 Chess'.

Interesting. The wiki on International Draughts mentions early on that it is synonymous with 'Polish Draughts' or 'International Checkers':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_draughts

I'd agree that to be called International Chess, such a variant really should be already popular internationally. Yet, I would have it as 10x10 (like for its checkers namesake), so it couldn't be orthodox (8x8) chess.

Otherwise, like for International Checkers, I'd think that besides being 10x10 there should be no pieces added/dropped to the board once the game begins. So, perhaps the first such 10x10 variant that becomes popular enough internationally should grab the title by being re-named 'International Chess' (at least until it begins to have some sort of steep decline, like chess itself might one day).

At the moment the only contender for the moniker (10x10) 'International Chess' I'm aware of might be (10x10) Grand Chess, if only since it has been promoted a lot - but it is not yet near enough popular in most nations. Finally I'd note that I've seen somewhere on this CVP website (on a rules page for a 10x10 CV that uses rotating spearmen) the claim that 'many scholars' agree that if 8x8 chess is to be further developed, it will be by a 10x10 CV:

https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/contest/cenchess.html

Well, as long as it would not be more popular than 8x8 orthodox Chess, any claim to the name 'International Chess' would be outright ridiculous.

That you want to restrict the competition to 10x10 is as arbitrary as only taking chess variants into account that have a Cannon as one of the pieces.

Actually, I don't know if (10x10) International Checkers is more popular than standard 8x8 checkers at present. The 10x10 variant just kind of got that name somehow.

Having 'International Chess' as 10x10 would simply be following with that precedent, besides the thought that 10x10 may indeed be the best board size, as John Brown would have it in the second link I gave before.

Actually, I don't know if (10x10) International Checkers is more popular than standard 8x8 checkers at present. The 10x10 variant just kind of got that name somehow.

Not where you live, of course; you are used to your own regional variant on 8x8 (which is really a children's game, one step up from Tic Tac Toe). A Chinaman would say the same thing for International (= orthodox) Chess, compared to Xiangqi. And he would have more cause, because there do seem to be far more Xiangqi players than for International/orthodox Chess.

Draughts in serious competition is 10x10 virtually everywhere.

So I don't think there is any precedent. And even if there is, it would not be a valid excuse to repeat such an outrageously ridiculous misrepresentation. But what can you expect, from a country where a playoff between two local leagues is called the 'World Series'...?

But I am Canadian. :)

For what it's worth, a while back I looked up FIDE's claim for how much chess is played (600 million adults - perhaps an over-estimation by the firm that was hired), while elsewhere I read that just 200 million people play Chinese Chess, which may be a gross under-estimation.

It would be nice to be able to find official, reliable figures somewhere. The estimates for Shogi and Go I also hunted down were only in the low tens of millions for each, which I find a bit hard to swallow, in the case of Go especially.

Well, Canadian teams compete for the World Series, don't they?

What one considers a player and what not is a bit ill-defined, and different games might use different criteria. But for the case of Xiangqi it isn't really that relevant, because it is so China-centered, and hardly anyone plays it ouside China and Vietnam. So it would never have a claim to the predicate 'International', no many how many players there are on a World scale. Likewise for Shogi; virtually no one playes that outside of Japan. The Dutch Shogi association has some 56 members, only about half of them active.

Orthodox Chess is not concentrated in any single country, or even continent. So the name International Chess is deserved there, even if it would not have the largest number of players on a world scale. As I said, it is not important how popular it is in China alone, that is only one county.

Canadian "team" - singular. And by a loose definition of "compete", since the Toronto Blue Jays aren't particularly good, haven't won the World Series since 1993, and have only made the playoffs twice since then.

Here's a possibly amusing little reddit piece on why the World Series is called what it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/572erb/why_is_it_called_the_world_series_when_you_guys/

I'd also note that at one point there were two Canadian teams in Major League Baseball - there used to be a Montreal Expos National League team, before it folded a few decades ago. Regardless, there were no Canadian teams around whenever it was decided to call the ultimate MLB championship the World Series (for whatever long-forgotten true reason).

Aside from that, I've tried to hunt down the origins of the use of the name 'International Draughts', and have nothing really to show for it so far. Other than that the wiki on the game that I gave earlier traces its first championship back to 1894, and there's no way it was International in the sense H.G. wishes for that word (i.e. played widely, AND the most popular variant of its game [checkers]). However, the wiki doesn't state what the game was actually called back in the 1800's at any point.

What might be interesting is to consider what if 10x10 checkers is played less than 8x8 checkers world-wide even today, BUT the 10x10 game is qualitatively better than 8x8 AND elite checkers players prefer it when competing [which they do internationally, too]. In that case it doesn't matter how many amateurs prefer 8x8 checkers worldwide, still, i.e. leading in popularity arguably may not be of absolute importance to whether the name International Checkers is deserved.

As I said, it is not only a matter of planetwise numbers, but also how they are distributed. From the map in here you can see that American Checkers is really a regional variant, only played in England and its former colonies.

Also, the predicate 'International' is normally only used if there is need to contrast it to a locally more popular variant. We just say 'Chess', and everyone knows what it means. It is mainly Asians that use the term 'International Chess', because when they say 'Chess' in their own language, it would imply a completely different game. Likewise with Draughts. We never say 'Internationaal Dammen' here. We just say 'Dammen', and there never is any confusion as to what is meant. The predicate 'International' is only used in countries where a regional variant is more popular. So the meaning of 'International' can also be 'Not that variant we only play here', i.e. the opposit of 'National'.

Personally that's not how I would try to sum up the appearance of that Venn Diagram ('map'), which is a bit confusing - it makes the area covered by International Checkers look only about as big as the area covered by 8x8 checkers, to me. Anyway, I wouldn't under-estimate the size of the British Empire at its height - a lot of nations, spread all over the world. For what it's worth, Russia could be generously thrown in too, if I recall right, as far as 8x8 variants go.

Russia is one of the dominant nations in international draughts. They provide about half of the world champions there. They never won the american checkers world championship.

8x8 Anglo-American Draughts is actually solved. Probably most complex game that has that title (I BTW still want to create a site like this but focused on abstract strategy in general)

This CV is quite interesting. I like this idea very much. As others, I'm a bit afraid of 2 Amazons per side. I understand the author's reason wishing to keep the standard respective chess lineup.

Then I wonder if it was considered to keep the 2nd row as it is but to modify the back row with Crowned Bishops (Missionaries) on d1,g1; a second Queen on e1 (behind the 1st one); and a single Amazon on f1 (behind the King) ?

Any thought?

I did have a discussion in this thread a few years back, with another gentleman, on the topic of having two Qs and only one Amazon, rather than the other way around.

My original theme in inventing the game was to crown or knight two of every piece in the FIDE army per side (aside from pawns and K), and so two Amazons happened to result - plus I faithfully kept the FIDE array as much as I could, on the second row.

One advantage of not having an Amazon on the second row, in a usual mirror symmetric setup, is that there is no possibility both sides will develop their sole Amazon opposite each other's, when an immediate trade of said ladies might happen. I also did not want to have Chancellors on the second row for the same reason. Perhaps I worried too much about eager trading, when trying to chase such a big piece with little ones might be possible, but I was a very inexperienced inventor then and gave that little weight.

There is 14x8 Alekhine Chess, invented by another person, which happens to have 2 Queens and 1 Amazon, though I don't like the game because arranging castling is too hard for one thing, and when I first saw the game I happened to also think that a Queen is the traditional sole wife of a K, at least at the start of FIDE Chess. However, I did remain haunted by having a sole Q in Sac Chess, when it's inferior in all ways to an Amazon. That was until I noticed the odd game like Courier chess, where a clearly weaker ferz is the K's wife apparently, while a (sole) guard is stronger in every way, but apparently not the wife. Courier Chess is quaint that way, and so I comforted myself with the idea that Sac Chess could also be considered similarly quaint.

Sac Chess has been played for a few years now on this website, and has proven fairly popular on Game Courier (in the top 30 currently out of over 1200), so I'd be more inclined that a seperate CV be invented, by anyone, to experiment with using 2 Queens and a sole Amazon in a Sac Chess-like 10x10 game, rather than my changing Sac Chess at this point. I may have suggested years back that anyone could replace the sole Q with an Amazon, and the two Amazons with two Qs, for each side, if they wished to try playing it. I think I even suggested a name for it (on this site or another), but I forget exactly what it was.

To Be Honest, I prefer a setup where the King Queen pair is switched with the Missionaries and the Queen is now the Amazon and vice versa

yeah it may break the Original FIDE setup but it allows the weaker pieces to develop faster without the stronger ones joining in as well which I prefer and for Castling, I would just allow the King castle with the Sailor

but that's just my preference, you do you, the current setup is good enough for me to play on and not ruin the variant for me

Sure, I was asking to know if what I was thinking had been considered. I have no doubt that this game is popular and I understand that it is not that every dude can alter your game.

I'm probably a bit stuck on the logic, because Sac chess is based on a very logical approach. If B, R and N are considered the basic ingredients, then having 2Q, 2BN, 2RN, 2KB, 2KR, 2KN and a single BRN=A is making it full.

The lineup with BN/Q/A/BN at the center of the back row is keeping the FIDE array in the 2nd row.

I will test a game like this, as a variant strongly inspired by yours.

I had considered the Q as a basic (FIDE) piece, and so I knighted it twice to produce the two Amazons (crowning a Q, in addition, not being 'possible'), as I had similarly knighted and/or crowned the R,N, and B twice (then there was also the angle of the Q starting out as the sole wife of the K in FIDE Chess). At least that's how I chose to carry out the theme for Sac Chess that I picked.

I neglected to mention that for a final setup I didn't wish to have more than one R-like piece on any file, as I disliked doubled R-like pieces being on a file that may be opened, possibly resulting in two very quick trades, or else heavy pressure perhaps being thus quickly created on a semi-open file. Next, I didn't want the Amazons in corners, nor the Chancellors preventing the analogues to Fool's and Scholar's Mate. Having decided on all that, and where to put the Centaurs (which I'd called Judges without being aware of the more conventional name - they are useful to protect a castled K where I put them, anyway, I think, and not deep hitting like Archbishops), I wasn't left with much choice where to put the Archbishops and the Missionaries. I preferred to have the Archbishops not on central files in case an enemy rook could suddenly wipe one out (Missionaries being slightly less valuable than Rs on 10x10 in my estimation), and in my final setup the Archbishops each ultimately point at an enemy Judge, which I estimate as weaker than an A on 10x10.

Anyone is welcome to try to improve on the setup of Sac Chess with a CV of their own. At least Sac Chess has had over 50 games of playtesting on Game Courier now, and the range of playable openings doesn't seem too small (nothing like FIDE chess in the early stages of a game, but I think it's tough for most if not all CVs to outdo that game in that way).

Strange... my post just now was immediately posted twice. I'd note that I'm not sure if I was properly logged in at the time.

probably lag or glitch