Talk:Gothic chess/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

So we are all in agreement?

I think the "See Also" section need not contain any links other than to Embassy and CRC. To embassy because there are only 2 pieces swapped, and to CRC for no real reason in particular.

GothicChessInventor 04:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not. --InfoCheck


Well, that other variant looks like it will barely be saved from deletion in favor of being merged with CRC. At that point, I will delete it from this page into the forever future should it appear on here again. Should you place it on here after it is merged, I will deal with you one day at a time.

GothicChessInventor 20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


GothicChessInventor, you should be careful how you approach wikipedia. Statements like "I will delete it from this page into the forever future..." are not productive and are not in line with what wikipedia is about. Please look for building compromise or consensus rather than resorting to what effectively is defacement tactics.

You appear to be pushing "competition" from you page rather than making rational decisions about an encyclopedic reference to your game. You should NEVER be editing the main page. Period. neoliminal 23:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Example game

I've removed this section as Wikipedia is not a how-to or game guide; making that section completely inappropriate for an article.--Isotope23 talk 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • ...and I've self-reverted because I just noticed this was sysop protected... though I will be removing the section once the protection is lifted because the section is inappropriate; it would just be equally inappropriate for me to be editing around the protection.--Isotope23 talk 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
May I say that this section was discussed to the death of it. Personally, I believe it to be necessary to the article, since it gives a feel to how the game plays out, and how it is different from normal chess. Maybe the way the game is annotated is inappropriate (never read through it to know, really,) but this is another matter. I hope you don't remove the game itself, since it gives quite an illustrative example of the powers of the two pieces. (It's like, say, giving an example to some grammatical or mathematical rule. You never know the impact of it until you see it.) --Sibahi 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Greetings Isotope23 and welcome to the discussion. As you can see, there is a great deal of diatribe here already. The item you have previously proposed for removal had been discussed a great deal.

The problem is, if you remove the "sample game" from this page, you should remove all sample games from every page that features them. That would be a great deal of work. You'd have to visit the page of the world's best regular chess program, Rybka, and remove its sample game. You'd have to go to other variant pages such as Alice_chess and remove its sample game. And, speaking of the Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook label, just read the Bughouse_chess article, it reads as one long cascade of "How to play Bughouse."

One sample game does not a "How To" make.

One sample games does not a Wikipedia break.

Please note that nobody really was opposed to removal of the 12 or so sample games that were listed here previously. It was discussed. As usual, some felt strongly to keep them, others wanted them gone, and, in the end, they were removed for being excessive.

This one sample game is of paramount importance. Consider the players: A renowned Chess Grandmaster who has already made her mark in history, Susan Polgar. She squares off against the inventor of the game, and the person with perhaps the most knowledge of the traps and pitfalls that await the unintiated player. Susan emerges unscathed and wins in impressive fashion.

I mention this because it's not like it was two people ripped off the street and just thrown in the mix together. The game is important on its own merits.

And, as we have seen, one sample game is acceptable on every other Wikipedia page that features one. So I would be most interested in discussing this in good faith with those thinking it should be eliminated from this page, and this page only.

GothicChessInventor 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Hmm, I never said it should just be removed from this article; "sample games" should be removed from all articles where they are found in; I just wasn't aware of the problem until today. They simply are not suitable material for a Wikipedia article regardless of the players involved, though the image of the game in question certainly could stay. Perhaps you could illustrate the game on an external site and link to it, but I don't see any justification for keeping it in the article. If it would help, I'd be happy to initiate a request for comment to solicit some outside views on this.--Isotope23 talk 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I've cleaned up all the examples mentioned above (well one was cleaned up by another editor). Any more you want to point out?--Isotope23 talk 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Well, I see there is still a sample game in the Bughouse_chess article, just now it appears as an animated GIF file. Is this acceptable? If so, this game would be excellent to have on here:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/0000014.gif

GothicChessInventor 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I have just removed the sample game from the Rybka article. Discuss at Talk:Rybka if necessary. Also, even User:GothicEnthusiast admits that the sample game here is "how to" content, see this diff or read above. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


I do not admit to anything implied by ZeroOne mentioned above, and I object to the aforementioned remark, and I say that ZeroOne is not following the Assume_good_faith metric, and I request that he remove the comment above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GothicChessInventor (talk • contribs) 20 August 2007

Read more carefully, I quoted User:GothicEnthusiast, not you. Also, I fail to see how you think I have not assumed good faith. By deleting the sample game from the Rybka article or by quoting GothicEnthusiast? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have sworn (late at night) I read my name there. My apologies.

GothicChessInventor 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Now, I recognize that the Wikipedia policies that define what is forbidden how-to -content may be loose when applied to chess games. This was discussed previously at least when the Sample chess game article was nominated for deletion and eventually transwikied to Wikibooks.
We could start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not regarding sample chess games in various chess articles but especially in the chess variant articles for illustrating the rules.
—ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


There is still a sample game listed in the Bughouse_chess variant, and it is even labeled as an example bughouse game. I see none of the editors here are removing that animated gif file, so it is safe to conclude that animated gif files are acceptable.

GothicChessInventor 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


I think if it is so widespread, and is a "natural reaction" to include it in so many different articles, maybe it is a good thing to have one sample game associated with an article for games of sufficient complexity. Perhaps you should open up the article on the Wikipedia page and address it to a larger audience for discussion. Even as I look in my 1963 Encyclopedia Britannica, I see a sample game of Reshevky listed. So, it must be "encyclopediac" if an analog source included it from long before there was "the net".

GothicChessInventor 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll open a blanket request for comment to discuss it across the board. I disagree that it is a good thing to have this in any articles, but we might as well have a full discussion on this in one place rather than deal with it piecemeal in every article this is being done in. I'll start the discussion when I get back.--Isotope23 talk 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bavarian Attack

I am not sure how to reference the "Bavarian Attack" that was tagged with a citation reference. It originally appeared on the Austrian Gothic Chess Federation page here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050313003136/www.gothicchess.at/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=42

...but it seems to be indexed improperly when you click on some of the old Wayback links.

GothicChessInventor 03:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Original Research" tag of Derek Nalls aka "BenWillard"

There is no original research in the section that was tagged by gadfly Derek Nalls. Everything in that section was published in the International Computer Games Association Journal.

GothicChessInventor 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Derek Nalls the name you give anyone who disagrees with you? Once the sign is placed, my understanding is that it is not to be removed until the dispute is resolved. I am entering any form of discussion, but I do find it annoying that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you to be a dupe of Derek Nalls. --Sibahi 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Derek Nalls has a history of blatant antagonism. See http://www.gothicchess.com/nalls.html for more information about his absurd behaviors.

I'd like to know what, specifically, is the "original research" in that section. Anyone can place a tag, but back it up. Everything in there is distilled from...

80-Square Chess, E. Trice in ICGA Journal Vol. 27, No. 2 - June 2004, p. 81-96.

For this reason, I am removing the tag.

Tell us all exactly what you claim is original research.

P.S. I know Sibahi is "KingReza" from BrainKing.com.

GothicChessInventor 06:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Interesting!! What makes you think I am KingReza ? --Sibahi 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
GothicChessInventor, please assume good faith here. You are making entirely unsubstantiated claims about the motivations of other editors. Unless you have good evidence that this "Derek Nalls" person really is editing here, please stop making these allegations. As you have a strong conflict of interest it is not advisable for you to edit here anyway. Hut 8.5 16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)



Conflict of interest? You've got it completely backwards. This is my only source of income. It is my business, that I built, myself. It is a demand in the market that I identified, sunk a few hundred thousand dollars into over the years, and one I continue to promote.

Describe how defending against casual editors with no real interest is a "conflict".

Describe how me answering the phone at 4 AM because a Gothic Chess player in Australia is calling to tell me that "vandals have struck" the Gothic Chess wikipedia page is a conflict.

Describe how me defending the inaccurate posts wherein my published papers are being labled as "Original Research".

I would like to quote you something directly from Wikipedia itself, since most of you are apt to do the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TROLL#Dealing_with_misuse_of_process

Scroll up a bit and you will find:

Misuse of process

Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game. Examples include continual nomination of articles for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that are obviously encyclopedic, nomination of stubs for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, baseless listing of users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, nomination of users who obviously do not fulfill the minimum requirements at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, "correction" of things that are already in conformance with the Wikipedia:Manual of style, and giving repeated final vandalism warnings to innocent users. When we say that something is "obvious" or "baseless", we mean that anyone acting in good faith would agree with that characteristic. Beware that sometimes something may seem obvious to you but be quite non-obvious to others, and characterising someone as a troll who simply disagrees with you can cause disputes which can be very damaging to Wikipedia.

OliFilth was the original person to "Misuse the process." He posted inappropriate labels. I responded to them in the discussion area, fully defeating his reasons with pure, easily demonstrable logic. So, what did Oli do? He changed the label, and "tried again." He demonstrated bias to having his way, on numerous occasions. In fact, he fits the mold of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TROLL#Creative_trolling

He does not care about the article, he only cares about changing it in a negative fashion. This is completely different from my DIRECT INTEREST where I want to IMPROVE THE ARTICLE, not merely keep it status quo.

Do you understand the difference?

Look at it this way.

What has he added?

Answer: Nothing.

If he is such a good editor, why can't he find ONE THING to CONTRIBUTE??

As I have stated before, I can drag any homeless person off the street, and with 2 minutes of training, I can have them edit in the same fashion, by merely deleting text.

Click. Select. Delete.

Not much to it.

I ask you to look at the entire history of this page, back from day one. I was not involved in the pages' creation. A person from another continent began this page. It existed for more than a year before I even knew about it. For vast stretches of time, there was no need for me to participate at all.

Then Bobby Fischer agreed to play a 12-game match with Anatoly Kaprov after nearly 18 months of globetrotting on my part to raise $15,000,000 for the match. It had been on the radio. There was discussion about it on several internet forums. But I still kept the lid on it, as per the conditions set forth by the match financiers.

Then all of a sudden, this page became the sandbox for anyone who wanted to try and discredit the game.

Gentlemen, any person that attempts such will be experiencing the full force and effect of a tireless campaign on my part.

I will not allow anyone to say my interest in Gothic Chess is a "conflict" in any degree, metric, or otherwise tangible form. Rescind your remark. This game is my livelihood.

GothicChessInventor 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Some points:
  • "the full force and effect of a tireless campaign on my part" of someone for whom the subject the article is their "only source of income" is practically the perfect example of a conflict of interest!
  • No one, as far as I can see, has added anything that could remotely be seen as derogatory, so I'm not sure how "this page became the sandbox for anyone who wanted to try and discredit the game". Any (unsourced and immaterial) derogatory information would be removed on sight by any one of the neutral editors that have contributed to this article.
  • I don't have to defend my actions, because any neutral editor would agree (and has done) that they were justified and in good faith. But nevertheless, I'll list my contributions to this article: Tidying up language, improving the formatting, making requests for references, converting POV material to a more neutral tone where possible, tagging areas in dire need of attention so that other editors could fix them, and removing material which was clearly unencyclopaedic. I have already explained my rationale for changing the tags for the section in question; I'm not going to do so again.
  • Please don't try and pass off the good-faith edits of neutral editors as "trolling", purely in an attempt to get your own way.
As you aware, there are multiple mechanisms available in Wikipedia to address perceived problems with specific editors. If you still think that I am (or any other user is) a problem editor, then please utilise one of these options, rather than continuing to fill this talk page with your latest diatribe about how it's all so unfair.
Oli Filth 08:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have posted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding this article. Hut 8.5 10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

tightening up.....

i've just completed a bunch of edits intended to tighten up the article - most 'bold' the removal of the example game section. Rationales briefly outlined in edit summaries, but discussion will no doubt continue here!......

(and hello all, by the way!) - Purples 07:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Radical removal of article sections that have been discussed for months is not the best way to make an introduction. May I suggest proposing changes before making a bunch of minor edits then hacking out one of the most important areas of the article?
GothicChessInventor 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Equally, wholesale reversion of many good-faith edits because you don't like one of them is not the best way to approach something either.
As for the section in question (the example game), that is now at least six neutral editors (User:Oli Filth, User:ZeroOne, User:Isotope23, User:Boricuaeddie, User:Purples and User:Mirage GSM) who believe that the removal of that section is justified, one of whom is an admin. (To any of the above, please let me know if I am in fact misrepresenting you.)
Regardless of whether or not the section is a how-to guide (I still believe it is, the only reason I haven't reinstated the tag is to wait for Isotope23 to get back to start his RfC, and I can't be arsed to get involved in another frivolous edit war) and original-research, it has been sitting with a "Unencyclopaedic tone" tag for over a month now. None of the section's supporters has made any attempt to resolve this issue by re-writing it properly; consequently I believe that removal of this section is more than justified, and supported.
To all involved, please don't re-add this section unless you are prepared to re-write it in the process.
GothicChessInventor, given the obvious WP:COI implications that exist (as you are both the owner/creator of Gothic chess, and one of the players in the game in question), I highly recommend that you don't do this yourself. It would only give other editors yet another reason to question the validity of the section. Oli Filth 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick comment to the above: the 1963 Encylopedia Britannica that I have features a full annotated chess game by Samuel Reshevsky. My question, which nobody answered in the "months" of having this sample game labeled "unencyclopediac" was: How come a sample game exists in an analog encyclopedia, but we can't have one here?"
Someone said they would open a general topic of discussion an a main board. I was waiting for the link to be reposted back here. It never happened,
So don't imply we were sitting around doing nothing. We were waiting to follow the lead by another, and this was never moved any further.
GothicChessInventor 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not a chess game is fully written out in a paper encyclopaedia, the language in the section in question was clearly not appropriate for a Wikipedia article; there's no reason why someone couldn't have fixed that. Waiting for an RfC to occur was not stopping anyone from making the language/tone more appropriate. Oli Filth 08:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

just a small note to say i firmly endorse Oli's comments - also, the 'bold' editing that we're encouraged to embrace is designed to help the process of getting the article to where it should be - this is probably encapsulated best by the "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." note at the bottom of every edit window. This is never intended to upset editors, just make better articles! cheers, Purples 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Now you guys really make me laugh. So you're telling me the content was OK, it just needed editing, but neither of you wanted to edit it, so you removed it? And I can't edit it, because of a "conflict", so who exactly was supposed to read your mind and get it the way it was supposed to be? You make my point perfectly clear: You are not editors, you are content removers. I can pull any homeless man off the street and he could do what you guys do too. If you felt the article was in need of editing, you know, that stuff that people who are knowledgeable in a specific area are capable of doing, why didn't you do it?

Thank God you never became surgeons, or there would be a lot of one-armed people in the world who went to see you in need of band aids.

“ It is an affront to treat falsehood with complacence. --Thomas Paine ”

GothicChessInventor 10:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


I think that post is a little bit over the top (but don't worry, I'm not a surgeon!) - Purples 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GothicChessInventor, your comment above is an ad hominem attack on other editors. Please address arguments presented and not the arguer. I'm sure you could "pull any homeless man off the street" and get him to remove content from Wikipedia, but he would be unable to justify his removals by referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You should not edit this article directly due to a conflict between your aim of promoting your business and Wikipedia's aim of providing a neutral encyclopedia (aka a 'Conflict of interest'), but there is nothing stopping you from posting something on this page for others to comment on.
Bear in mind that it is questionable whether this game should be here at all. The two arguments presented so far in favour of keeping this game are that it shows how to play Gothic Chess and that it has historical or other significance in its own right. The first violates WP:NOT, and the second means it should be placed in a seperate article if it passes Wikipedia:Notability. Hut 8.5 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: when User:Hut 8.5 mentioned "game" above, (s)he was talking about the Trice-Polar game, not the game of Gothic Chess. Oli Filth 00:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

small note on involved parties, and comment about sample games in general.....

A short(ish) direct note to Ed about 'Conflicts of Interest'; Having read your fairly impassioned post above, I just wanted to respond a little.

Probably the relevant bit of our guidelines is "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest" - I'm pretty sure that under this clear criteria, you do in fact have a 'conflict of interest' - although if 'conflict' is a word that sounds too strong to you - perhaps another way of saying it is that you're clearly involved with Gothic Chess (!), and as such with all the will in the world you're fundamentally not neutral.

You're obviously a great resource for this article - so the guidelines suggest (and it seems like a good idea to me) that you stay active on this talk page, but don't edit the article page itself without a very clear consensus here first - does this sound ok to you?

Re : the sample game section - without prejudicing a more general discussion, I'd just say that I thought that this section was inappropriate. It didn't read very well, it's encyclopedic purpose wasn't clear, and I think the article is much tighter (better) without it.... Purples 08:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


“ A neck is not made better with a rope being made tighter around it. --GothicChessInventor 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC) ”


umm... ok. (i think i'm missing the point here - sorry) - Purples 12:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How about: Tighter might not always be better, to use your nomenclature. GothicChessInventor 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ah yes! - i see! - i'm afraid i disagree though. I felt the article previously was a bit bloated, and unwieldy, and I agree with those editors above who feel that the 'example game' section was inappropriate. A concise re-write focusing the aspects of the game which are unique might work well, but I don't have the necessary expertise unfortunately. As it stands, I believe the article is better without the material previously submitted.

also - i removed the line that you had added above your comment, because this may confuse editors reading this thread, and as you take a look at other wikipedia talk pages, you'll note that this isn't a convention in use. This edit (and others, like the previous removal of your blue box) isn't intended to annoy you, or be a big deal at all. I think it would be great if you would remove your blue boxes yourself, because they too are a little confusing - thanks.... Purples 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move

As the predominant capitalisation appeared to be "Gothic Chess", I've taken the liberty of moving the article from Gothic chess to Gothic Chess. All links to the old article will still arrive at the correct place; the same goes for this talk page as well.

Oli Filth 02:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sample games (revisited)

How come the sample game from GM Larry Evans' page is allowed to remain in his article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Evans#Chess_career

I think sample games are needed and should remain.

ChessHistorian 08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; why don't you ask there?
Maybe because no-one here knew about that article; I'll look at it later. Oli Filth 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is best forum for discussing sample games in general (although it's fine if you want to.....) - but without prejudice on that issue, I'd say that the section in this article really just wasn't a very good fit, for that reason (elaborated above in discussions between several editors) it's best left out for now. I do think that a snappily written section describing some unique aspects of Gothic chess might work well - perhaps you could give it a go? - cheers, Purples 11:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Purples, Gothic Chess does not, to my knowledge, have an opening book and if I understand that concept of the designer GothicChessInventor one of the goals is to minimize book openings. Because of this I think that the "opening" section should contain no named openings. It appears to be contrary to the designers wishes that there be opening books and as such we should avoid giving credit to early opens adopted by players. Opening theory in Chess too thousands of years. To assume that any of these openings will last 5 years is folly. I highly suggest a re-write of the opening section that removes references to the named openings (which appear to be vanity openings anyway) and simply explain the difference between openings in Chess and Gothic Chess. For example the fact that the board is more open and early sacrifices can yield tactical advantages are important notes, but there is no need to ascribe them to the "Trite Gambit". neoliminal 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


There is a rather large body of Opening Theory in Gothic Chess. In fact, if you download Gothic Vortex from http://www.GothicChess.com/vortex.zip you will find about 30,000 positions in its opening book. I never made any claiming about "minimizing opening books" so that remark is completely without basis.

There have been two Gothic Chess Review articles written entirely about Opening Theory. If you doubt that some of these openings would "last 5 years" I suggest you examine the archive of games shown here:

http://www.gothicchess.com/bk_archive.html

The games are still being added to the site's JavaScript tool, but if you click here:

http://www.gothicchess.com/javagames/brainking_db/players/GrimReaper.html

...you can basically replay every move I have ever made and see how these openings will stand the "test of time."

There were also two tournaments run on BrainKing.com where Trice's Gambit was the thematic opening. After 1. c4 f5 2. Nc3 Axc4 there is a tremendous amount of interesting play. Andreas Kaufman was one of the participants in this tournament, and he did rather well.

The Gothic Vortex opening book now has many more attacking lines in its opening book after I reviewed the play of the participants of that tournament. There were numerous games that were of a great deal of interest.

By the way, I had given permission to a well known chess author to publish a book on Gothic Chess. It will be coming out this fall. Then, you can cite the ISBN number of this new book where the opening names will be shown.

GothicChessInventor 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


From your own PDF 80 squares you mention the increase of opening theory as one of the problems with chess and that your game helps removed this by having more possible openings. I'm quote your own document: neoliminal 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Chess was suffering from its own popularity. Many games were published and annotated at great length, allowing master play to “trickle down” and be imitated by players of lesser strength. Those who were already master-caliber players became even more informed regarding the latest issues in opening theory, middle-game strategies, and endgame tactics. The result was that the drawing frequency among the chess elite was sharply on the rise.




Piece Values continued.....

I've removed Derek Nalls' values because i'm afraid i can't see any justification for their inclusion - a ref. to a (non self) published source is required, i think.

small points in addition;

I agree about the boxes - would you mind not using them, GothicChessInventor? - they're not a convention in common use, and I'm afraid I too find them distracting and confusing. It's also very much part of the wiki-culture for editors to reformat each others comments if they aren't conforming to common practice (including modifying signatures, believe it or not!).

Also, as I've mentioned, to comply with our guidelines fully, you really can't 'reserve a right' to edit anything in the article except very clear vandalism (and if someone adds information in good faith, such as the Nalls values, I'm afraid no matter what we think of its usefulness, that is never 'clear vandalism').

I'd consider a strong sign of your good faith if you were to cease editing the article at all.....

thanks - Purples 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know if Nalls' published his findings and they are clearly just on his own site so I agree. neoliminal 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Also, the Lewis values suggest that Archbishop + Pawn is worth 2 Rooks, clearly this has to be a serious error. Here is a link to all of the endgame tablebase data I captured:

http://www.gothicchess.com/db_5_stats.txt

Look for this line of code down near the bottom:

krrka      52   97.0   3.0   10.1       31    1.4  36.5   12.6     15

This basically means that 2 rooks have a longest win against a lone Arcbishop that requires 52 moves, they win 97.0% of the time, draw 3.0% of the time, and never lose when it is their turn to move. The average win length for the 2 rooks is 10.1 moves.

The Archbishop to move will defeat 2 rooks 1.4% of the time, with a longest win of 31 moves, with 36.5% of the games ending drawn. That means 62.1% are still losses for the Archbishop.

Adding one pawn unit to the Archbishop side can't be of so much help as to overcome 62.1% of the positions' losses.

GothicChessInventor 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I follow your reasoning (and personally, find this quite interesting) - however, this probably isn't the right place to research the rights and wrongs of Lewis' work. I left his values in, whilst removing Nalls', not because they're better (and Nalls' might be great too) but because his evaluation as a game theorist is of encyclopedic interest, whereas I haven't seen anything that indicates Nalls' work can be found in any reliable sources.

And thanks for not using the blue boxes anymore! - it really is much clearer to me!, - Purples 05:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

“ ... however, this probably isn't the right place to research the rights and wrongs of Lewis' work... - Purples ”

I disagree. If someone is posting something to the main article page, it should be able to be discussed here at length. Otherwise, what's the point? Who else is going to put somebody's mathematical values through any kind of rigorous analysis?

I would like to remind you that somebody else added the text...

The key area of disagreement in placing values on these pieces is over the Archbishop's value.

...as if the implication was that the values that I carefully researched and published in a credible venue were the items that were questionable.

I am not saying my values are perfect or are the "end-all" values that should be universally adopted. But if you are going to put something side-by-side and declare them to be of equal merit, demonstrate this to be so. I published my data, put them into a Gothic Chess program, and it has remained the program to beat since 2003.

I have done everything that somebody can do to demonstrate the merit of the claim. To have somebody say that their own numbers "in theory" are better than the ones that I produced is just an unproven claim, therefore, it should be treated as such.

And, to those that insist they have something remarkable, by all means, get it published somewhere. If you think Wikipedia editors are critical, trying having a panel full of PhD's in computer science from around the world who each are given carte blanche priviledge to take pot-shots at your paper. If one of them says your stuff is junk, guess what? You are still an unpublished author. To get something published in a Computer Science magazine when you don't have a PhD in computer science, or you are not pursuing such a degree, is almost unheard of today. Therefore, they are even more apt to find some "flaw" in your paper, whether it exists or not. Read the Wikipedia article on Peer_review and you will see what I mean.

Having said that, I hope you understand better the value attributed with this work. I solved a problem set forth by the mathematician Henry Taylor from 123 years earliers, a problem whose solution was not intractible, just difficult. My computational model was not just for the 10x8 board for Gothic Chess, it was for any rectangular (or square) board of dimensions R x F, each nonzero. For R = F = 8, my formulas magically simplified into the Taylor subset for the square chess board for ALL of his own equations for each piece. This is what raised a few eyebrows. Not of skepticism nor doubt, but of silent praise and appreciation of the effort that went into it.

GothicChessInventor 08:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

“ ... I love these quote things! - let me explain a little more about what I meant... - Purples ”

(and the use of the quotes is of course intended in good humour!) - here's a few more words explaining my previous quote; discussion of the notability and reliability of material in the article is pertinent, but analysis of that material's merits is not within our remit - indeed it's forbidden by the 'original research' guidelines.

So you can certainly argue that Lewis' values aren't notable (i've explained above why my first impression is that they are), or you can argue that they have no reliable source (again, brief first impressions seem ok to me) - but we can't really say that they shouldn't be included because they're not good enough, or as good as others (ie. yours!).

Also - I've removed the sentence about the key disagreement, which was one of my re-writes of some other existing prose - it's probably superfluous, and your points concerning it above are taken - thanks, Purples 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My point regarding the piece values was not arguing whose was better. My point was, I don't care what values other people have, as long as their data was published.

Take a look at this page: Chess Piece Values

There is a great deal of variety among those point values for contemporary chess, but they were all published data.

If my values were not published, then there would be no reason to prohibit any other unpublished author from posting their data here.

But, the fact of the matter is, my data was published, so anyone else who has gone through the same rigor in preparing a paper for publication may submit their data as well.

I maintain that if anyone's data really has merit, then can get it published by a reputable source. If it is merely arbitrary words on paper surrounded by superlatives and without foundation, let it circulate the internet as an unpublished document, but not from the Gothic Chess page.

GothicChessInventor 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel the Lewis numbers were not published by "reputable source"? Many of the things you claim are on websites. The Lewis system is published in two locations on the internet. If publication on the internet doesn't qualify for you, then I suggest you stop bothering with this page... as it's published on the internet and therefor is of no value to you as a reputable source.
The data that you use to support your valuation claims for the Archbishop are from "The mathematician Henry Taylor (1876) established the concept of a ‘safe check’ as a means for estimating the value of the chess pieces on a square board with n squares per side. Taylor’s ‘safe check’ measured the number of moves that a given piece could check an enemy King without the King being able to capture it (trivially) on the next turn." This valuation is seriously flawed when evaluating non-sliders (or pieces that derive some function from non-sliding). http://www.gothicchess.com/80.pdf
The Lewis system was designed to allow for valuation of fairy pieces that combined or used unusual movement or capture systems, such as the chines chess pao. The Taylor system actually get's worse results the larger the board for pieces that are non-sliders. There is no evaluation of effective piece protection, safety from capture (excepting the king) and there is nothing in the way of comparison to other piece values. The Lewis system combines ALL these elements.neoliminal 02:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Further research shows that even you qualify the Archibishop as a special piece noting from your own pdf.

Recall the contemporary Queen is given a one pawn bonus for having the combined powers of the Rook and Bishop exuding from just one square (instead of two). Should the Chancellor and the Archbishop be treated similarly?... There are a few things worthy to note at this point. These are not exact ratios universally accepted by the chess-playing public... The new Gothic-chess pieces values were likewise adjusted according to some intuitive observations over the course of many games. The Archbishop is very deadly in closed positions, particularly because it can issue a checkmate unassisted. This piece tends to be worth much more than the sum of its minor piece values in the opening phase of the game. ... Our experience so far has shown that the Archbishop is the most deadly piece in the opening...

In your own words you extol the value of this piece as "the most deadly piece in the opening", to further explain that more open games reduce it's value. It's your valuation system that is flawed with an assumption of an empty board and your crutch of a 5 piece end game program analysis which both obviously remove the most advantageous environment for the Archbishop: A closed board with lots of pieces. You've exposed the very flaw in your own rating. I've re-applied the Lewis number. neoliminal 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If rook is stronger then bishop, how archbishop (bishop + knight) can be stronger then chancellor (rook + knight)? There is something fishy in Lewis computations. Does anybody checked them? Andreas Kaufmann 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The concern of Andreas Kaufmann is well-founded. [He was correct when he expressed concern about an early version of Nalls' model.] Playtesting is the key to refinement. Theory alone without experimentation is closer to blindness than you may realize. The hard work one invests in developing a theory causes one to lose objectivity and assume they must be making progress toward the goal of perfection. In fact, just one wrong turn within a complex subject matter causes one to lose their sense of direction (so to speak).
The Lewis model has the archbishop valued at 9 points and the chancellor valued at 8 points. The Trice model has the archbishop valued at 6.50 points and the chancellor valued at 8.25 points. Under the Lewis model, the player without the archbishop has a 1 point disadvantage. Under the Trice model, the player without the chancellor has a 1.75 point disadvantage. Since there is a sharp disagreement between the two models over which player has the advantage to win under this condition, I recommend playtesting using a CRC variant where one player starts without an archbishop and the other player starts without a chancellor.
Use a fast computer with extremely long time or depth controls per move. Use Gothic Vortex, SMIRF or ChessV. Play at least 4 games with each player having a turn at white and black and both relative orientations of the asymmetrical opening setups by north-south measure (since each side is missing a piece). Most importantly, always be fair to both sides. Get back with us in a few months with the results. Until then, I think the Lewis values should be kept off this page due to their radical nature.
--BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the conversation Ben and Andreas. Andreas, the bishop is color locked. When you remove this restriction it become much more powerful. So a bishop that could switch color squares would be valued at or near a Rook. That's a basic chess concept.
Ben, both numbers should stay or both should be removed.207.172.166.104 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but there is no need to call me "Ben". It is not my real name. Benjamin Willard was the captain in Apocalypse Now who was given the bizarre mission of killing a colonel who had gone insane and was commanding troops without authorization. --BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest you use your real name? use the tildes if you want use to verify and listen to your contributions. neoliminal 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
“ The new Gothic-chess pieces values were likewise adjusted according to some intuitive observations over the course of many games. The Archbishop is very deadly in closed positions, particularly because it can issue a checkmate unassisted. This piece tends to be worth much more than the sum of its minor piece values in the opening phase of the game. ...Our experience so far has shown that the Archbishop is the most deadly piece in the opening... - Ed Trice, 80 Square Chess ”

Of course I recognized my own research from my own paper, and I anticipated people overestimating the value of this piece, and that is why I added this to my paper. The reason that the Archbishop is so "deadly in the opening" is because people are unfamiliar with this piece, and one wrong move against it leads to an unfamiliar checkmate being issued. Chess masters rely heavily on patttern recognition, and there is nothing even remotely similar to this piece on the contemporary 8x8 chessboard.

Here is a subtle example:

http://www.gothicchess.com/javagames/db_masterfile/0000012/game.htm

Click on 12.Ke3 to go directly to that position with black to move. Look at the position for a while, let your board vision adjust. Here is a two-toned example of deadly Archbishops. It looks like black is in danger, since white is threatening Aj4+ which will win the black Chancellor on the next move, Axh2. But black looks to have made a fatal error with 12...f5 allowing just that! Indeed, white falls for the trap, playing 13. Aj4+ Bg7 14. Axh2 but now the motive behind ...f5 becomes clear: Black's own deadly Archbishop is released!

14...Ac4+ 15.Kf4 Ne6# game over.

The moral of the story: The lack of understanding how the Archbishop can be wielded in NO WAY increases its strength; it just means people can't yet integrate its play properly into their own game. Once we have decades of strong players paving the way, with plenty of such games, the Archbishop will be diluted in terms of its perceived value.

GothicChessInventor 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your published and peer reviewed paper extols the Archbishop as "very deadly in closed positions, particularly because it can issue a checkmate unassisted. This piece tends to be worth much more than the sum of its minor piece values in the opening phase of the game. ...Our experience so far has shown that the Archbishop is the most deadly piece in the opening" and yet you still undervalue it. Your backpedaling with comments about perceived valuation and years of play before the actual value of the piece is known is clearly showing your own lack of confidence in your own words.
Which is it? Is the piece the most deadly or is it third most?
Also can you address the fact that your valuation systems do not take into account full boards unlike the Lewis system? Your system is based either on empty boards or boards with 5 pieces or less. This is clearly a situation where a valuation of the Archbishop would suffer horridly! neoliminal 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


First of all, is not the "Neoliminal" person the same as John Lewis? The web link provided says so, so why do you pretend to be another person talking about "him" in the third person?

And I explained my remarks about the Archbishop.

A nuclear device is much more deadly than a handgun, but more people die from gunshot wounds than instantaneous irradiation from nuclear detonations. More people die from mishandling a weaker weapon (the gun). The Archbishop is weaker than a Queen, and it is a very "misunderstood" piece.

While "our experience" showed that it was very deadly in the opening, this value diminishes by the middlegame. Once kings have castled Archbishop mating frequencies go way down. As the board opens up and file control becomes more important that diagonal access, the role of the Archbishop clearly takes the back seat of the 3 "supermajors".

Again, the Archbishop can make many "mating threats", but these are mostly "mate in 1" or "mate in 2" threats that can be dealt with, IF you know to look for them.

A person who plays "hope chess" and "hopes" that their opponent cannot see a 2-move combination is the type of person who would think and Archbishop is so highly valued.

By defending your incorrect statement with such vigor, you just reinforce the notion that you are a weak player.

GothicChessInventor 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Which web link "says" that they are one and the same? Oli Filth 07:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat my question: Can you address the fact that your valuation systems do not take into account full boards unlike the Lewis system? Your system is based either on empty boards or boards with 5 pieces or less. This is clearly a situation where a valuation of the Archbishop would suffer horridly! neoliminal 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) aka John Lewis

Who Removed This Link?

http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/GothicChessIntro.htm

The comment on the history page was "dead link" when clearly this link is alive and well.

Also, shouldn't this report of the computer world championship be included?

http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/ComputerWorldChampionships.htm

It shows 8 Gothic Chess programs from 3 countries besides the USA competing. I have yet to see Grand Chess or Janus Chess or any other similar variant have such a level of interest.

GothicChessInventor 09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Short answer to your question is 'I dunno, but you can probably find out via the history - does it matter?'

Where do you envisage these links and why? - Purples 11:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

oh! - the first link is still there, under 'external links' (doh!) - so no-one has removed it.... Purples 11:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry, it was the "Gothic Chess Miniatures" link, I copied the wrong line from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_Chess&diff=next&oldid=155470904

It was done by an anonymous I.P. address with the comment "remove dead link" but the link is still active. Was this an act of disguised vandalism?

GothicChessInventor 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it just didn't work on their computer. I've put it back as the page does exist. Hut 8.5 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds "Clunky"

Read this:

Ed Trice, the game's inventor, has calculated values for each piece, and John Lewis, a game theorist has calculated values for chess variants which use fairy pieces, such as Gothic Chess.

The sentence is "run-on".

I would think this is better:

Ed Trice, the game's inventor, published numerical values for each of the pieces on a board comprised of 80 squares. A different set of unpublished values were computed by John Lewis.

I'm not sure why "game theorist" is affixed before his name. Usually one applies a vocation label to a person if that is their sole, or primary, source of income. For example, on all of my tax returns, I state my occupation as an inventor, since the royalty revenues I make exceeds the sum of everything else that I make in a given year.

Can Mr. Lewis make a similar claim about being a "game theorist"? How does one become a "game theorist"? Can anyone make a similar claim? Is there a panel that reviews your application to become one?

GothicChessInventor 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made a halfway-house effort at making the sentence more readable. If another editor more qualified (than I) to discern how to word the issue of publication could tidy it up, that would be appreciated.
I'm not sure who this John Lewis fellow is, so I can't say for certain what is appropriate here. However, there are plenty of people whom we might describe by a vocation that is distinct from their official career. For instance, most people would refer to John Nash as a "game theorist", although I'm sure he puts "professor" or some such on his tax return. Oli Filth 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The method by Lewis is quite interesting, but I still don't understand how Archbishop (B+N) can get more points then chancellor (R+N). At the same time R is 5 and B is 3 using the same method. Why adding knight move to a piece changes the situation so radically? Does anybody checked Lewis' computations? Andreas Kaufmann 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The key question concerning the Lewis values is whether or not they are notable. Noting that he is a game theorist is a kind of claim to notability, but it's not currently backed up with any source (and my extremely cursory searches haven't yielded any results) - so I'll remove those values.

I do actually have similar notability concerns about Ed's values (sorry, this really isn't a value jadgement, just a a concern....) - have you published these in an 'arms-length' journal, Ed? - (maybe with the peer reveiw you mentioned above?) - obviously without reference to such material (and this probably goes for the opening, middle and endgame sections too) the article runs the risk of falling foul of 'original research' and notability guidelines.... best, Purples 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, his values were published in his original "80-square Chess" article in the ICGA journal. Oli Filth 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/journal/contents/content27-2.htm GothicChessInventor 22:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fantastic - thanks. Would you mind if I piped the ref. there rather than your own site? - It's much more suitable. Purples 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


The PDF file of the entire paper is on my site. They have actually changed the location of the page on their site twice, plus it does not have the full article. So, you might encounter a broken link from them in the future, and, anybody who visits that page won't be able to read the whole paper anyway. GothicChessInventor 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that means it's best left alone - the link to the journal is here for the record now in any case. I'll ammend the ref to add the journal info. - Purples 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In doing the above, i noticed the double ref, so have pointed both ref.s to the icga paper to the same place... Purples 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Board display error?

I'm seeing the board displayed without some pieces and missing squares. Is anyone else seeing this or is it something perculiar to my perspective computer? neoliminal 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone's getting the same problem on all articles with chess-board images. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Problem with ALL chess diagrams. Oli Filth 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it looks almost fixed. (just two pieces missing) neoliminal 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I have an acceptable solution

At http://www.GothicChess.com I used to have a link to the Wikepedia page under the Gothic Chess Info menu on the left. As long as the article contains any nonsense, I don't see a reason why GothicChess.com needs to link to it. When people like Nalls and Lewis are done trying to promote their absurd piece values from the Gothic Chess Wikipedia page, or when they get a respectable artificial intelligence or Computer Science journal to publish their research, then I'll add the link back.

GothicChessInventor 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't relevant... Purples 07:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your call. Remember: On the Wikipedia, you have the right to edit your article, but other people also have the right to edit your article. That's just how it works here. Trying to control other editors in Wikipedia will just leave you frustrated. Just to clarify 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't write articles based solely on your opinion. We don't write articles based on who links to them either. Please don't think otherwise. Hut 8.5 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't free advertising for your game and it wont make any difference if you remove your link or not. What matters is the exchange of ideas and the freedom here to have people enter the facts as they see them. You'll note that I never claimed to have the exact values of the pieces, just a system that generated values and posted the values themselves. The system I created existed long before I took an interest in trying to help shape this article. Honestly, I would think it in your own best interest to have competing valuations of the pieces, but only a clever businessman would want there to be public controversy over the values of the pieces in his game. lol neoliminal 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

some more about Lewis' values....

...the concerns over the Lewis values boil down to a question of notability, and 'reliable sources' (it's always worth another look at WP:RS).

I'm afraid my call would be that the Lewis values fail to meet the necessary criteria - specifically because i'm note sure that Lewis himself is notable, nor that his values have been published in a reliable source.

Ed has said that he believes that John Lewis edits here as neoliminal - it's very frowned upon within wikipedia's culture for editors to speculate about 'real life' identities (unless the editor concerned is happy to be open with the information) - so it's probably best that we don't bother discussing this issue too much. It's also worth pointing out that any editor's identity doens't really effect how appropriate their contributions are......

I'm going to remove the Lewis values once more, and would appreciate the above points being clearly addressed before their re-insertion.... thanks.... Purples 02:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am John Lewis, and have never claimed otherwise. My contributions to the chess variant community are numerous. Visit chessvariants.org for more information. I have created numerous chess variants which are being played online (table top version would not be suitable because my focus is normally about limited information like dark chess). I'm a game developer and have contributions in Blood Bowl (where I created a system for quantifying the game pieces there [1]), Narosia RPG, and many White Wolf products. The information published on fairy piece values was submitted on the Chess correspondences board www.schemingmind.com and (although I don't recall at the moment) may also be on chessvariants.org. At this point Trice will likely go over his curriculum vitae as comparison, but remember that his accomplishments are not at issue here. Mine are. neoliminal 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are indeed John Lewis, then it's probably best to let other editors make edits to this article that concern your research. Re-adding your own material to the article when others have expressed concerns about its notability/reliability/etc. could easily be considered POV-pushing, original-research-pushing or a conflict of interest.
By all means contribute to the discussions on this talk page, but please refrain from editing the article itself in this regard. Oli Filth 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
While I don't think any of these issues apply here (POV, OR, COI), I am frustrated by what appears to be verifiable COI by the game's designer. My repeated attempts to put competing views on valuations have not been restricted to my own research (accepted by many in the online community), but those of other noted in the community of Chess Variant designers. Mr. Trice's reputation for bully tactics aside, there is absolutely no reason not to have the valuations from the Lewis system on this page. They are published, reviews, and have in some minds better valuations than those used by Trice. If this is simply going to be a battle of Trice supporters vs. those who feel that this should be an open source of information than I guess he's already won. neoliminal 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a "supporter" of Ed Trice, by any stretch of the imagination. If you read the archives of this talk page, you'll see that I've been one of the most active in trying to tackle the COI issues that he has posed. However, he now seems to be (mostly) abiding by the Wikipedia guidelines, certainly as far as edits to the article namespace are concerned.
Trice has raised a valid issue; that whilst his values are published in a peer-review journal, the same can't be said for your values (as far as I can see). If we're going to hold him to Wikipedia policy, I think it's only fair that we hold all other contributors to the same level.
If your material has indeed been published, or in some other way can be considered reputable, reliable, notable, etc., please let us know here! Oli Filth 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
They were published here [2]. And peer reviewed here [3] neoliminal 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid an internet chat page doesn't qualify as peer review. Oli Filth 19:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It's hard to find an academic committee devoted to fairy chess pieces. This is a close as it gets. neoliminal 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You can try to publish your research in ICGA Journal. There are also other relevant journals, like German Computerschach und Spiele (Computer chess and games). Andreas Kaufmann 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The ICGA Journal is unlikely to be interested in an article about fairy chess piece valuation when it's not designed to help write a computer program. These numbers are for humans, hence I don't publish the decimal versions. It's to help human players create roughly equal sided games. A German Games magazine would be more interested but I would have to translate the system into German, which I don't speak. Chess variant creation is a relatively small field. I assure you I'm in the thick of it. neoliminal 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


You can't spell my name right, you think an Archbishop + Pawn = 2 Rooks, and you can't get a paper published on the material, yet somehow you are correct and I am incorrect. Did I leave anything out?

GothicChessInventor 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


1)Sorry for the typo, I was pasting the same mistake over and over. It's been fixed.
2)Yes, on a full board an Archbishop is + 1 pawn is worth 2 Rooks. On an empty board it is not.
3)Everywhere I've submitted the material it's been published. I've never tried the ICGA because I have no plans to either write a chess or chess variant playing program.
4)You've left out the part where you explain how you can defend a valuation system [4] that uses "safe check" valuations when using non-slider pieces (particularly when expanding the board) and your use of a brute force Casablanca 5 piece valuation where the strengths of the Archbishop are reduced because of the lack of interposed pieces. Apparently your "peers" neglected to notice.

neoliminal 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


GothicChessInventor, you seem fond of making wagers as you've often told me that if I can beat your chess program with one written with my valuations you'd agree that mine were correct. I'll wager you this. I'll submit an article giving my valuation system and values for all the pieces in Gothic Chess to the Chess Variants Society Magazine that Andreas Kaufmann mentions as a source for your game. If it's accepted then you agree my numbers sit next to yours. If rejected I'll stop attempting to get them listed. Fair enough? neoliminal 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The "peers" did not neglect to notice, they understood the correctness of my approach, and they validated this by accepting the article.

Here's what will help you see why your numbers are wrong: Post your values, and only your values, somewhere as a new topic on the Rybka forum where 10x8 chess is being discussed.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1986

Request Larry Kaufman to comment on your values.

Then maybe you will finally see what I am talking about.

GothicChessInventor 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


What value would you give the Archbishop in a middle game where no pieces had been exchanged and no king had castled? Ballpark, no need to exact numbers.
What value would you give the Archbishop in an end game where there were 5 pieces on the board? I think this value already exists in your estimation but I want it for comparison.
These are simple questions. Can you give just the numbers?

neoliminal 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


You are seeking solice by wanting to "hide behind" my numbers and demonstrate that yours are "only different by X..." and that is really cowardly. Post your numbers, and let them stand alone. I did not have anyone to compare mine to, I let mine exist without needing a crutch, so if you are confident in your values, you should do the same.

Your requests for overspecifics indicates you did not read the section of my paper where I cited the concept of "semi-conditional" values from Aron Katsenelinboigen of the University of Pennsylvania, whom I met in 1999. My paper was not a discussion of the Gothic Vortex evaluation function for the pieces. The evaluation function does adjust the piece weights based on dynamic board criteria which are too complex to explain in a post here. That DOES NOT change the fact that the Static Exchange Evaluator (amazingly there is no A.I. section on this in Wikepedia) must use a fixed set of unchanging base values in order to make the quiescence search more efficieint and much more expediant.

Just to illustrate my point, look at this game:

http://www.gothicchess.com/javagames/brainking_db/players/GrimReaper/144/game.htm

Play forward to the final position. I have yet to see a Gothic Chess program that wants to play my 21. Qxh5 move where I take a Rook and offer up my Queen, the whole time my Chancellor is hanging (under attack by the enemly King) and my Archsbishop is hanging (under attack by an enemy Bishop.)

My opponent resigned in this position after 3 days of contemplating how to get out of the mess.

So, my questions to you are: What is the value of my Queen in that final position? How about the Chancellor? And Archbishop?

And tell me, why does my attack work?

There is no counter to Ch8. neoliminal 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can answer those questions correctly, then you have some Gothic Chess knowledge.

GothicChessInventor 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Again you evade the question and then set up a series of your own. I see a pattern to your "debate" style and it's pretty clear that you don't bother with anything other than misdirection and strawman tactics. The question I gave is ridiculously simple and the only reason NOT to answer it is that you know it matches my values. neoliminal 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My values that I published never change. The Gothic Vortex evaluation function does change. The Archbishop's value is never 1.0 pawns over its nominal value, and that happens in fewer than 0.01% of all positions. Mostly, the Archbishop's value changes over a range of +/- 0.5 pawns, depending on whether or not it should try and win a Chancellor or Queen at the expense of pawns.

Still, your values are way, way off base.

I joined the Rybka forum and I will post your values there and ask Larry Kaufman to comment on them, if you don't.

GothicChessInventor 02:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. I sent them directly to Larry. neoliminal 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Larry Kaufman's Remarks About Neoliminal's Piece Values

This pretty much sums it up (from [5]):

“ I'm no expert on Gothic or Capablanca chess, but I know that the Archbishop is not as powerful as the Chancellor (apparently M in this table) and is not even close in value to the queen, so the "A" value is way too high and the "M" value somewhat too low. As in regular chess, the bishop's value depends greatly on whether the bishop pair is scored separately or not; if not (as I assume since it's not in the table) the bishop's value is too low. ”

—lkaufman

The discussion is ongoing. Interestingly Ed knew about a different set of values (Larry's) and never offered them up to the site. neoliminal 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Ongoing? Seems like he strongly disagrees with your values. You are forever in denial over your poorly chosen values. Wallow in your ignorance, I am no longer debating an unarmed opponent.

1. I published Larry's values in 2001. I can't help it if you didn't read that issue of Gothic Chess Review.

2. Larry did not offer a full set of values.

3. If Larry wants to submit his values to Wikipedia, let him do so.

Honestly, it is too easy to keep finding flaws in your half-baked logic. It is getting a little boring.

GothicChessInventor 03:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


1. Sorry, back issues appear impossible to find.
2. The remaining values were implied.
3. Actually anyone can post them. I'm refraining.
"The Chancellor should be worth about 1/2 to 3/4ths of a pawn or so less than the Queen... The difference between the Queen and the Archbishop should be less than the difference between a Rook and a Knight (about 1.75 pawns in chess) because adding the movement of the Bishop cures the Knight's limited range. This implies that the Chancellor is worth about 3/4ths of a pawn or so more than the Archbishop."
neoliminal 17:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)