Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Strange! Despite using the '?nocache=true' suffix and flushing my browser cache the updated version of betzaNew.js refuses to appear in my browser.

How about placing a dummy piece on an invisible square? The swapping move could be legal only if the piece is still on the board, and it could remove the piece when it is completed.

That could actually work.

But in the mean time I got another idea. During search the move descriptors as generated are extended with other information, such as how much they alter the score by capturing material. But also how much the 'royalty count' of each player changes by the move. And when that hits zero (or worse) for one of the players, it causes replacement of this heuristic score by a game-terminating one.

These royalty updates are only defined when there is a royalty change through capture of a royal or a piece subject to a baring rule, or by promotion of or to such a piece. For normal moves it would remain undefined, and making the move would not alter the royalty counter of either player.

The user-supplied Tinker script could thus predefine these royalty changes. Capture of a true royal would deduct 1024 from the royalty count, and with a single royal (for extinction royalty) or absolute royals the initial value would start at 1. (And when a baring rule is in effect it would start as the initial number of pieces subject to that baring rule, and each such piece that would be captured would decrement the royalty count by 1.)

This could also be used to set a budget for events that can only take place a limited number of times during a game. E.g. if the royalty count would start at 3, and the Bishop swapping move would get a royalty decrement of 2 specified for it by a Tinker script, playing it a second time would turn the royalty count of the moving player negative. Which would be considered an immediate loss / illegal move, like blowing up your own King in Atomic.

The issue then is reduced to how we can get the initial royalty count set to 3, rather than the usual 1. I suppose it would be worth it to add a new parameter for this to the I.D., like extraRoyalty=N (with default N=0). This would then be added to the normal starting value based on counting royals and baring-rule pieces. I will work on that.

How about placing a dummy piece on an invisible square? The swapping move could be legal only if the piece is still on the board, and it could remove the piece when it is completed.

The problem is that this has to be done at the moment the move is applied to the board, and (in the AI) will also have to be undone when the move is taken back during thinking ahead. Which is a different moment as when the move is generated, during which a user-supplied Tinker script can be called to judge or modify the moves. Moves are first generated and put in a list before anything is done with them. (And then tried out one by one.)

A Tinker script can suppress generation of the move. (E.g. because the piece the moving Bishop tries to swap has already moved; moved pieces are distingishable from unmoved ones.) But if it wants special things to happen during execution of the move, it would have to specify these in the move encoding. Currently moves are stored as an array of squares to modify, a promotion piece, and (optionally) a drop piece. Where it is understood that the first two squares are origin and destination of the basic move, i.e. the origin is cleared, and the promotion piece (which can be the moving piece itself) will be put in the destination. For any additionally mentioned square it depends on the board occupancy: if an empty square is mentioned, the drop piece will be put there, if an occupied square is mentioned, it will be cleared.

So an e.p. capture (or other locust capture) would mention the e.p. square as third square, a castling would mention the rook's origin and destination as extra squares, and a rook as drop piece. A swap move would repeat the origin as a third square, and mention the original occupant of the destination as a drop piece.

This encoding system does not allow for in-place replacement of a piece by another; they are either deleted or dropped on empty, and the latter can occur on at most a single square. Except for the moved piece; this can promote, even when destination equals origin, and its origin can be repopulated. But here we would have to change the occupants of three squares into three others, swapping two and demoting the third.

Could the color-changing move also include a conversion of the other Bishop to a regular Bishop?

The problem is that the I.D. cannot precisely implement te Bishop adjustment rule. It is possible to equip Bishops with an initial sideway friendly swap (isudW), and even possible by some scripting to require the partner has not moved. But it is not possible to revoke the move on one Bishop when the other makes it.

I improved the diagram and the text describing it today, but it could use an Interactive Diagram. Would someone like to provide one?

@SYG: "is it possible to perform a Bishop switch maneuver TWICE? ". The answer is in the short text: "The player would have four ways to do the adjustment, but he is only allowed to do it one time throughout the game".

Brilliant analysis and subsequent position, Max Koval. However, could it not also be consonant with contemporary emphasis upon cults and conspiracies, the the bishop adjustment rule, which would render control along "theistic" or spiritual lines, to all of the white squares upon the board might not also represent the current world emphasis upon a Spirituality 2.0 or next-generation spirituality which would actually require an expenditure of energy to re-emphasize the importance of the spiritual or numinous in a secular world? And that this expenditure of energy would be masterfully represented by a player sacrificing momentum (in the form of one 'castling' like maneuver to switch one of the black bishops to white? Additionally, it has been many years since I have read the original thesis, and I was quite young, at the time, but... is it possible to perform a Bishop switch maneuver TWICE? And thus have a player be able to have TWO bishops operating along white squares? This is an intriguing perspective and again, thank you for the BRILLIANT and mind-expanding ideations!

I don't think that dark-squared bishops are a problem here. On the contrary, it is rather something that makes this variant interesting, considering the fact that a bishop is stronger than a knight on large boards. It would be great if someone could actually calculate which one is actually more valuable here. This game is intended to represent chess in a modern condition, apart from the introduction of the minister, where the influence of religious institutions, represented by bishops, is diminished, and it is logical that the other part of the board is no longer under their control.

It has been brought to my attention that the name of the author of this game is not correct. The full name is Gabriel Vicente Maura. From the examination of several sources, it appears that Gabriel is the first name and Vicente Maura is the family name. As it is usual in hispanic mode, Vicente is the father's name and Maura is the mother's name. Vicente also being an usual first name, a confusion has arisen.

In his Spanish book "Evolucion del ajedrez, 40 siglos" (Madrid, 1980), the prologue mentions "esta obra de Gabriel Vicente Maura", then simply "este libro de Vicente Maura", "el labor de Vicente Maura". In the acknowledgements, the author thanks his son, Carlos Gabriel Vicente Vega. He is also named his son as Carlos Vicente Vega at several instances in the book. On p212, the author mentions his niece, Marissel Velazquez Vicente.

From all this, it is certain that Vicente is not the second given name of the author, but his main last name, the one inherited from his father. The inventor of Modern Chess is Gabriel VICENTE MAURA, Mr. VICENTE.

According to Pritchard's Encyclopedia, it was dissolved in 1984.  I tried some Google searches, English and Spanish, and didn't come up with anything.  Apparently, like many variants, it did died out once the inventor was no longer promoting it.

Does anyone now if there still is a world federation of modern chess?

Hi.

i believe the personal invitation feature for game courier simply hasn't been working for some time now.

Only public invites are working. 

Nonetheless: Thanks for all your great work on the website, Fergus. 

Kevin,

I have a Modern Chess set, so I checked the official rules. They state that the game be played as it is set up. That is, one player has two bishops on white, the other had two bishops on black. The author seems to think this is better. The inventor permits, with prior agreement of both players before the start of the game, the "Adjustment of the Bishop".  Each player may swap one bishop with either neighboring piece, providing neither has moved.  This expressly forbidden in the official rules.

This may be a question with an obvious answer, but I was wondering if either side can commit to playing the whole game with two bishops on the same coloured squares (not including any promotions to a bishop). As there is nothing I can see that's against this possibility in the rules, I'm assuming it's allowed.

Interesting use of the BN piece type combo in a variant.

Here is a Modern Chess preset that doesn't enforce the rules:
/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DModern+Chess%26settings%3DAlfaerie2

Antoine,

The Preset you previously created has a bug in the Bishop adjustment. If a Bishop moves first (not adjusted), the 2nd Bishop is not allowed to adjust (which it should!)

Can you check it? 

Thanks.

Jose