Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 04:46:17 03/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2006 at 07:32:57, Tord Romstad wrote: >On March 04, 2006 at 07:10:39, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On March 04, 2006 at 06:47:23, Tord Romstad wrote: >> >>>On March 04, 2006 at 06:29:33, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>> >>>>Shuffle Chess is no superset to traditional chess, because it does not support >>>>castlings. >>> >>>Are you sure? I thought it did allow castlings, but only when the kings >>>and rooks start out at the same positions as in normal chess. I apologize >>>if I was wrong about this. >> >>Please show me a definition of its castling procedure, I never have seen one. > >I thought the castling procedure was exactly like in normal chess. As I said, I >could be wrong. I don't care much either way, really. > >>>I don't see why this subset/superset stuff has any interest except >>>when writing a computer program, though. I also don't understand how >>>anyone can consider FRC not to be a chess variant. >> >>Normally chess variants define distinct games. Chess960 is a superset to chess. >>It includes traditional chess. So how could it be a variant to a part of itself? > >Again: The rules are similar, but not identical, hence they are two different >variants. That one of them happens to be a mathematical superset of the other >has no relevance at all, in my opinion. In fact I have never been able to >understand >why you think the subset/superset relation is interesting with regard to >abstract >board games. Because in my opinion the word "variant" implicates incompatibility. >I also don't understand why we are discussing this at all. It has very little >to do with Swaminathan's question, and no more with my reply. Swaminathan >asked whether shuffle chess would be better than FRC when testing engines, >and I simply replied that the two games are different, and that he should just >test whatever he thinks is more fun or interesting. And there is the connection: because Chess960 is a compatible superset of the traditional chess game, experiences are highly reusable. >By the way, since we are discussing chess variants: If you add hexagonal chess >support to your GUI, I shall happily try to add support for your protocol to my >engine. :-) Well, it is always encouraging to hear, that people are knowing my SMIRF chess GUI (which I have been forced to write, because of missing GUIs, which were 100% compatible to Chess960 and moreover to 10x8 chess variants. The SMIRF GUI follows the philosophy of supporting FullChess, which means a set of chess variants and variations like Chess960, which could regard the game of traditional chess as a compatibly included subset. Though it is looking very nice, hexagonal chess does not fit (in my opinion) into that FullChess approach. Remember, I made that GUI only because there is still no substitute. Writing a GUI is a lot of work. And I am not willing to make such a huge effort to give it away finally as Freeware. Of course I would be able to write a GUI for hexagonal chess variants. But first there should be a promising model, how to do this and get back some money for all that work. ;-) Reinhard.
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.