Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 11:13:12 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2004 at 13:17:31, Angrim wrote: >On June 19, 2004 at 11:23:13, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On June 19, 2004 at 11:05:10, Angrim wrote: >> >>>I think that having castling in randomized chess is silly, >> >>Why? > >Partly that the position after castling is more similar to the >standard start position is after castling, thus discarding some of >the randomness. partly that it prevents engines that are designed to >play non-randomized chess from being able to play the game. This is by intention. One goal is to develop computer strategies and evaluation methods transferable to conventional chess. >>>and if you leave it out then you can both make the rules simpler, >> >>Castlings are defined by very simple rules. You simply have to think of >>normal chess: the post-castling positions are always the same, the way >>of the pieces to perform the castling have to be free, a chess threat on >>the way is disabling a castling possibility. Everybody who can play the >>traditional chess is able to understand that nearly at once. > >refering to the rules that you posted, which include more than >just "how to castle" there are also the following: > >3) the king always has to be placed somewhere between > the rooks >6) if a castling enabled rook is not the most outer one > at that side, the letter of his file has to be placed > immediately following his castling marker symbol, where > 'q'/'Q' are used for the alpha-, 'k'/'K' for omega-side. That is no rule but more a hint how to implement it within a protocol and related storing standards. The castling itself is very simple to understand. >I agree that this is not a large amount of complexity, but it is there. >The issue is larger with FRC, where there are already lots of tools >for working with chess positions which would work on randomized >positions just as well except that they can't handle FRC castling. >I guess there are far less existing tools for capablanca chess. > >>>and also remove some of the restrictions on where the king/rooks go >> >>From which restrictions do you speak? If it is that the king has to be placed >>somewhere between the rooks, well, that is for to enable castlings. > >exactly. so remove castling and that restriction goes away. That is no restriction, but a necessary feature to enable castling. >>>which allows for a wider variety of starting positions. >> >>Why do you think, that 24000 different positions are not sufficiently wide? > >the number of positions is adequate, but the variety is reduced. >A starting position with the king on the very edge of the board could >be interesting for instance. If that would be important for you, make a new own approach. I myself think its variety is sufficient. Far more important to me is the working combination of Fischers FRC idea with Capablancas board and pieces design. >>>Just my opinion of course, but I think that it should be removed. >> >>Well, but you have not mentioned really strong reasons for that. >>Nevertheless thank you for your opinion. >> >>>Angrim Regards, 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.