Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:49:16 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 12:27:21, Ed Trice wrote: >Hello Dr. Hyatt, > >> >>Why would I? To do this would require multiple things: >> >>(1) a reason for wanting to play YACV (yet another chess variant). ICC >>already has dozens. No major tournaments. No major competitions. No >>major organizations. So what would be the driving force? >> > >I wish you could have been at Bartle Hall in 2002 with the 2500 people playing >Gothic Chess. I wish you could attend a scholastic event where the city-wide event has 2500 kids playing normal chess. Not world-wide. In _one_ city here in Alabama. :) > >>(2) who would bother with a 1-year license? What would the fee be after >>that? In my case, I really wouldn't care. >> > >Well, you have to write the program first, which is a challenge. > >>Here is your challenge for the week: >> >>I am going to study your game. A friend and I are going to sit down and >>start playing gothic chess against each other. Your mission is to _stop_ >>us. If you can. I don't believe you can, myself, with any patent process >>known to man. > >Show me visual proof of you playing Gothic Chess when you do, or else I will >consider your post here just hypothetical :) > >>If you can't stop that, then you are going to be unable to prevent me from >>writing a program that can simply play the game against someone else, just >>like Crafty does for real chess. > >See, this is the beauty of it: writing a Gothic Chess program is diffcult, and, >by default, that will stop many, many people, perhaps even you. I don't see anything difficult about it at all. Generating moves for odd pieces is not a problem whatsoever. The evaluation would take some time to tune decently just as it does for a chess program, of course. But the _game_ itself is no more complicated to program for than chess. IE I generate moves for kings and knights in exactly the same way. I don't even generate moves for a queen, I pretend it is first a bishop, then a rook... Etc. > >>But this is all moot, as chess has a _long_ life left in it, with a lot >>of inertia behind it. What would be the driving force for anyone to write >>yet another variant program? > >1. Gothic Chess is cool, and it is an interesting programming challenge. I wouldn't agree or disagree there. >2. There is no 'opening theory' so the programmer with the most talent would >really be victorious, rather than the one with the best book. A book is not _that_ big a deal in normal events, if the participant takes some care in what he is doing. >3. There is clearly a disagreement as to the value of the pieces, something that >has not been around in a long where chess is concerned. Sorry, but that is _way_ wrong. You pick a position and you can create great arguments when comparing a bishop to a knight, or a queen to a rook + bishop + pawn, etc. Even chess programs don't have "standard" values for pieces and pawns, if you read here regularly... There's a _lot_ of room left for discovery. >4.Because of 1-3, it will be "fun".
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.