Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 03:24:26 03/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2006 at 05:57:01, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >On March 04, 2006 at 05:28:49, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On March 03, 2006 at 23:44:04, Swaminathan wrote: >> >>>I wonder what exactly is wrong with shuffle chess? >> >>Nothing. And shuffle chess is not better (nor worse) than FRC >>for testing engines. They are simply two slightly different games, >>and which game you prefer is a matter of taste. > >Veto! Of course Chess960 is a compatible superset to traditional chess. >Any Chess960 aware engine also could play traditional chess and also >Shuffle Chess. Thus there is a hierarchy of compatibility, where Chess960 >is top and Shuffle Chess is bottom. I am not sure what you are trying to say here, or how it contradicts anythig I said. I said that shuffle chess and FRC are slightly different games, and as far as I can see you say exactly the same, and proceed to add a few obvious remarks about how the two games relate from a chess engine's point of view. FRC and shuffle chess are two different supersets of normal chess. Arguing about whether one of them is "better" than the other is as pointless as arguing about whether blondes are prettier than brunettes. >Chess960 is not merely some new chess variant. How do you define a chess variant? FRC and chess are obviously not the same game. A game is defined by a set of rules, and the rules of FRC are clearly different from the rules of chess. On the other hand, it is obvious that FRC is very closely related to chess. A more clear-cut and obvious example of a chess variant is hard to find, IMHO. Tord
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.