DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Chess Variant Forum
HTML https://chessvariantforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Correspondence Game Requests
*****************************************************
#Post#: 287--------------------------------------------------
Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: GothicChessInventor Date: January 29, 2018, 3:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I hereby declare that Panzerschiff can beat anyone on this site
in a correspondence game of Gothic Chess played at the rate of 1
move per 7 days (faster on occasion and as the players deem
fit).
:)
#Post#: 288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: chilipepper Date: January 29, 2018, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Who is Panzerschiff? Is it another screenname for you, a friend,
a computer program, or a secret? ???
#Post#: 290--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: GothicChessInventor Date: January 29, 2018, 8:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=chilipepper link=topic=53.msg288#msg288
date=1517265671]
Who is Panzerschiff? Is it another screenname for you, a friend,
a computer program, or a secret? ???
[/quote]
Panzerschiff is my friend from Ohio. I think his correspondence
chess rating was 2200+ in the early 1980s.
By the way, programs are horrible at correspondence time
controls for Gothic Chess, and they are the easiest opponents to
defeat. They just can't plan ahead.
#Post#: 296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: chilipepper Date: January 30, 2018, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh, Thanks. Any idea which of the two programs (Fairy Max, and
ChessV) is stronger at Gothic Chess? I've tried both programs
(with other games) but have never played them against each other
in one particular game. Regardless of which one is stronger - I
think they're both well designed, and like them a lot. :)
#Post#: 300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: ebinola Date: January 30, 2018, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll take a crack at it. Not to say that I'll win but I'd like
to play nonetheless.
#Post#: 304--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: GothicChessInventor Date: January 30, 2018, 7:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ebinola link=topic=53.msg300#msg300
date=1517352569]
I'll take a crack at it. Not to say that I'll win but I'd like
to play nonetheless.
[/quote]
OK I'll play 1. d4 if you want to play against me. It was not
fair for me to volunteer Panzer :)
#Post#: 305--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: GothicChessInventor Date: January 30, 2018, 7:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=chilipepper link=topic=53.msg296#msg296
date=1517328868]
Oh, Thanks. Any idea which of the two programs (Fairy Max, and
ChessV) is stronger at Gothic Chess? I've tried both programs
(with other games) but have never played them against each other
in one particular game. Regardless of which one is stronger - I
think they're both well designed, and like them a lot. :)
[/quote]
I made a new topic out of this question, but here is the short
answer for the list of programs from that played in the 2007
Gothic Chess Computer World Championship:
[table]
[tr]
[td]Place[/td]
[td]Program[/td]
[td]Score[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1-2[/td]
[td]Gothic Vortex[/td]
[td]13.0-1.0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1-2[/td]
[td]Variant Pulverizer[/td]
[td]13.0-1.0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3[/td]
[td]Tornado[/td]
[td]9.0-5.0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr][td]4[/td]
[td]SMIRF[/td]
[td]8.0-6.0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5[/td]
[td]TSCP Gothic 64-bit[/td]
[td]6.0-8.0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]6[/td]
[td]fmax4[/td]
[td]4.5-9.5[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]7[/td]
[td]ChessV[/td]
[td]2.0-10.0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]8[/td]
[td]Zillions 2[/td]
[td]0.5-13.5[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
Gothic Vortex and Variant Pulverizer each won their games as
white against one another. They were the dominant programs.
Sadly, Vortex does not run under Windows 10, so I need to
rewrite it.
#Post#: 307--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: Greg Strong Date: January 30, 2018, 10:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=chilipepper link=topic=53.msg296#msg296
date=1517328868]
Oh, Thanks. Any idea which of the two programs (Fairy Max, and
ChessV) is stronger at Gothic Chess? I've tried both programs
(with other games) but have never played them against each other
in one particular game. Regardless of which one is stronger - I
think they're both well designed, and like them a lot. :)
[/quote]
The newest ChessV beats Fairy-Max pretty regularly. If you
download the Windows installer
HTML http://chessv.org/downloads/ChessV2.1-Install.exe,
it includes
Fairy-Max, so you can use ChessV to pay them against each other
with no configuration needed.
#Post#: 310--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: GothicChessInventor Date: January 31, 2018, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Greg Strong link=topic=53.msg307#msg307
date=1517372701]
The newest ChessV beats Fairy-Max pretty regularly. If you
download the Windows installer
HTML http://chessv.org/downloads/ChessV2.1-Install.exe,
it includes
Fairy-Max, so you can use ChessV to pay them against each other
with no configuration needed.
[/quote]
Chess V is very easy to crush. I gave it 3 minutes per move
tonight on my Intel i7-5960X overclocked to 4.6 GHz and I was
able to beat it by giving it tons of material in positions it
obviously did not understand.
1. d4 d5
2. Nh3 Nc6
3. i3
The first step to defeating a program: play positionally and
avoid tactics. This is a slow, developing move that programs
can't decipher. It looks to "weaken" the kingside from the
perspective of most evaluation functions, but it is simply
preparing to castle, which is always a good idea in Gothic
Chess.
3...g6
4. c3 h5?
Black is self-inflicting wounds already.
5. Bi2 e5
6. dxe5 Nxe5
7. f4 Ng4
A move with the aim of forcing the white archbishop to "babysit"
the h2 square, otherwise the fork ...Nxh2+ picks up the rook on
j1. This motif is ubiquitous in Gothic Chess, and many games
feature such play. However, here, the program is missing the
most obvious way to dodge the veiled threat made by this knight.
8. Ac5+ Ae7
Of course, trading archbishops by using the tempo of check to
castle out of danger.
9. Axe7+ Cxe7
10. O-O Qd6?
The game is functionally over already from a strategic point of
view. All this move does is allow a trivial skewer threat along
the a3-f8 diagonal, which is the diagonal on which the game ends
very shortly.
11. b3 Bf5
Ignoring the threat of Ba3 with the mistaken belief that
blocking with the pawn move to c5 is "safe enough." Even though
the program is completing 12- and 13-ply searches, the danger
associated with the bishop on a3 is actually permanent, and not
temporary. Programs have an impossible task if they wish to try
and label such positional stratagems.
12. e4 Bxe4
I decide to donate a pawn to start "tilting" the alpha-beta
window. As the program is now a "pawn ahead," literally every
move it searches will be good for it and any lurking danger will
be beyond its search horizon. This is the perfect square to lure
the bishop onto, since there is a semi-pin on it considering my
chancellor is gunning down the e-file and with Ng5 I compound
the attack on it on e4.
13. Ba3
Making this move now since BxN on b1 would deny the safety of
deploying it.
13...c5
14. Ng5 Nf2
Allowing black to fork my queen and rook with its forlorn knight
now on f2, because my rook is actually quite safe. I will
further illustrate this in upcoming moves by planting the rook
directly in harm's way where the knight can capture it.
15. Qe2!
The game is definitely over now. Get out your scorecards and
start counting how many hanging pieces white allows. Currently I
am down one pawn and allowing the knight to take my rook.
15...Nd3
And the knight declines winning The Exchange, wisely. I thought
with the extra pawn it was ahead, it would grab it and allow
Nh7+ inflicting more than collateral damage. This is actually a
good move for black.
16. Cd1
White really doesn't have a choice here. One thing I have
noticed in all of my years of play, if one side plays Cc2 (or
Cc7 as black) that almost never works out well. Chancellors need
to be treated as rooks until the late middlegame, where they
become more deadly.
16...f5
This move basically turns the black bishop on e4 into a pawn. It
has no safe moves anymore. It does stop Nh7+ by virtue of
allowing the chancellor to cover that square, free from any pawn
obstructions on the 7th rank now.
17. Nd2 Nh6
18. Re1!!
A move which wins in all variations, as is often said. Black has
closed the position and white needs to pry it open in order to
exploit the defects in the enemy camp.
18...Nxe1
19. Ndxe4!!
And white does the unthinkable, capturing the "bad bishop" while
letting the knight that took the rook remain unscathed. The
knight on e1 is dead meat anyway, and by keeping it around the
program is burdened with move generation for it to no avail. The
white knight on e4 is impervious to the pawn threats to capture
it. If 19...fxe4? 20. Ne6+!! and if 19...dxe4?? 20. Cxd6 takes
the queen. In the game, white is now down a Rook and a pawn for
a mere bishop, and one knight is en prise. These are the types
of positions that confuse programs.
19...Qc7
20. Nh7+!!
And white sacrifices another knight!
20... Cxh7
21. Cxd5!!
Leaving the black knight on e1, and only capturing the "mission
critical" d5 pawn for it while leaving the knight on e4 hang,
still.
21...Kg8??
Going from the frying pan to the fire.
22. Qc4!
Again, setting up play with the concept of a deadly pin rather
than try and recover material or save the hanging knight. None
of these moves would ever make it "within the bounds" of an
alpha-beta search window. Yet they are deadly.
22...Nxg2+
A spite check if there ever was one. The materialistic computer
snags another pawn. The move is about as worthless as they come.
23. Kh1 Qf7
24. Ng5 Nxf4
Look at all of the threatened pieces in this position.
25. Ce7+!!
I decide to let the black king take my chancellor. Not now, but
in 2 moves. The program still doesn't understand. How can it be
so far ahead in material and still be losing?
25...Kf8
26. Nxh7+ Kxe7
27. Qxc5+
And now that a3-f8 diagonal is fatal.
27... Ke8
28. Re1+ Ne6
29. Qd6 Be5
The program must start tossing pieces to stop the checkmate.
It's a cake walk from here to the end.
30. Rxe5 a5
31. Rxe6+ Qxe6
32. Qxe6+ Kd8
33. Qe7+ Kc8
34. Bd6 Ng8
35. Qc7#
So don't put too much faith in programs, no matter what
statistics their programmers throw at you. They are easy to
defeat with creative play that takes them out of what they
consider "the principal variation," if you can identify the key
segments of the board that need occupation.
#Post#: 312--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gothic Chess Correspondence Game
By: HGMuller Date: January 31, 2018, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure what exactly Gregory means by 'beats it
regularly'. Does that imply more than half of the time?
Note that Fairy-Max is what I consider a weak program. It is
derived from micro-Max by just changing the possible board sizes
and piece moves, and micro-Max was optimized for being small
(maximum Elo per character) rather than for being strong. As a
result virtually all Chess knowledge was culled out of it, and
the search algorithms are also pretty basic.
For orthodox Chess, where people keep rating lists, mico-Max'
rating is aroud 2000. For comparison, current top programs are
over 3000. People that build a new egine from scratch, and put a
by-now standard amount of minimal knowledge in it (like about
Pawn structure, i.e. passers, doubled and isolated Pawns, the
King's Pawn shield) typically are 2200 Elo as soon as it is
ready to play, and rise to 2400 when the worst bugs are ironed
out. Joker, the program from which Joker80 for 10x8 Chess is
derived, is rated around 2400. And Bihasa is much stronger in
Gothic Chess than Joker80.
Furthermore, there seems to be a strategic aspect to 10x8 Chess
that is not very important in orthodox Chess, and makes it
relatively easy for Humas that know the trick to beat most
programs. So using the same algoritm as an orthodox engine, just
enlarging the board size, does not automatically preserve the
strength.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page