Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:15:49 03/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2006 at 06:24:26, Tord Romstad wrote: >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. only one comment about it. A chess engine that does not support castling can play shuffle chess in most positions without problems. A chess engine that does not support castling cannot play chess or FRC with no problem. Uri
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.