Talk:Gothic chess/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Question

The 2007 Gothic Chess Computer World Championship is coming up this October. There was one in 2004, 2005, 2006 was a "cybrog" event of humans + programs, and now this one. There are a great many games that were played in these events. Should a Wikipedia page be constructed for this event? There will be newspaper and television coverage of it again this year, possibly also a PodCast from the Main Line Chess Club in Philadelphia.

The 2004 Event made it into chessville.com here:

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

GothicChessInventor 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If it does get into reputable newspapers, then yes you could make a Wikipedia page about it. See Wikipedia:Notability. But as the main Gothic Chess page isn't that long it might be better to make a note of it here rather than making a separate page. Hut 8.5 08:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed a discussion about misspelled words here. Complain at User talk:ZeroOne if needed, not here. You are free to remove this comment too, if you want to. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)



[edit] the broader notability issue...

having been a little involved here for a short while, I thought i'd raise some general issues that i think the article may face;

Many of the article's sources are self-referential, ie. refer back to Ed's work directly - this is of course fine if the sources qualify as reliable (like the icga journal) - but it leaves a broader issue of notability in general.

Leaving aside all the 'battleground' and conflict of interest problems that this article seems to have seen, I'm concerned that we haven't really shown with reliable sources that the article meets our notability criteria. I'm told that one simple way of raising this within the community is to list the article at WP:AFD, which brings a wider set of eyes to the article to make a call... thoughts? - Purples 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying the United States of America is not "notable" because everything seems to be traced back to this "George Washington guy."

If Gothic Chess is not "notable" and we have nearly sold as many Gothic Chess sets as the United States Chess Federation has members, then you'd have to delete every single chess variant on Wikipedia for not being notable also. The House of Staunton is selling Gothic Chess sets for $895 each at http://www.houseofstaunton.com/gothicchess.html and I don't see any other 10x8 variant listed there, do you? Gothic Chess has a page in Russian, German, and Portuguese. Gothic Chess is currently played in 57 different countries, going by our sales database.

If Gothic Chess is not notable, is Capablanca Chess? If so, why? By the way, 4 former World Champions have played Gothic Chess, can you name them?

GothicChessInventor 06:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


ICGA Journal is a reliable source and Gothic chess was described there. This is already enough to make it notable. Andreas Kaufmann 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right of course that the ICGA is a reliable source, however our guidelines (WP:N) say that we need 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' - so more than one source.

Those same guidelines explain why the number of sets sold, or the pedigree of players don't in and of themselves render the subject notable. Also, it's really really important to firmly establish notability, so arguments that seem to argue that the consequences of this article being found wanting include vast swathes of deletion actually make it all the more important that we solve this one.

My concerns remain, but remember that I am only one editor, and an AfD isn't intended to be aggressive, just to clearly debate, and decide whether or not the article meets all the important criteria. I'll not list it for now, because we may well be able to find other reliable sources... so far, I've found it hard..... Purples 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Chess was not "only" published in the ICGA Journal. It was published in a hardback textbook also: http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/~uiterwyk/acg10.htm

It's been covered in newspaper articles BEFORE it was more or less common to make online versions of said articles.

It's been played by 4 former World Chess Champions: Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, and Susan Polgar (Women's World Champion.)

People from Germany, England, Poland, The Netherlands, as well as the USA have written dedicated Gothic Chess programs, and this is not a trivial task.

One of the world's best chess set manufactures, House of Staunton, is now producing wooden Gothic Chess sets, which you can see here: http://www.houseofstaunton.com/gothicchess.html

The 2007 Gothic Chess Computer World Championship will be hosted this year by the Main Line Chess Club of Philadelphia, presided over and in attendance will be National Master Dan Heisman.

It seems whenever the "definition" of notable has been "satisfied", some editor comes along and tries to change this definition.

Yet, why are you raising this proverbial bar only for Gothic Chess? Why not visit the Janus Chess page, or the Embassy Chess page, and do the same?

Can you answer that question Purple?

If Gothic Chess, with all of its accolades, is not notable, you might as well delete every other chess variant mentioned on these pages, because none of them are played anywhere.

GothicChessInventor 16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, GothicChessInventor exaggerates about the popularity of Gothic Chess but he makes some valid and important points.
The truth is that only 1 out of 25-50 typical Americans (for example) can tell you anything intelligible about any chess variant other than Chess or Checkers. So, in terms of notability, the entire category of chess variants fails to meet Wikipedia standards (by strict definition). I don't think it serves the best interests of Wikipedia to apply such strict definitions to this subject matter in this case, though. It would be wholesale destructive to decimate (which literally means reduce to 1/10th its original number) the entries that have pages. Suffice to say that chess variants are not interesting to the general public but only to very few, special enthusiasts who find them interesting. Still, the existence and availability of this information on Wikipedia is important to all of us.
--BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The only general standard of notability on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability. Whether the average man on the street has heard of it does not count as notability here. Contrary to what GothicChessInventor says above this definition has not changed significantly over time. It would be nice to see some more independent sources though. Virtually everything cited or linked to here was written by Ed Trice or the Gothic Chess Federation. Hut 8.5 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is one independent source: British Chess Variants Society Magazine, Issue 47 February 2005 pp 33-48. Surely, there are more... Andreas Kaufmann 20:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The average man on the street certainly what Chess is. Chess Variants are a specific type of chess, a part of the chess spectrum. The average man on the street knows what the Periodic Table is (or at least what an 'element' is) but would be hard pressed to tell you what the Periodic number and abbreviations for Osmium is. This is not reason to exclude Osmium from Wikipedia and the same can be said for Gothic Chess. neoliminal 23:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


“ Of course, GothicChessInventor exaggerates about the popularity of Gothic Chess... -- BenWillard, a.k.a. Derek Nalls ”

There are no metrics to measure "popularity" Derek, nor did I ever feature the word in a sentence and spout forth a claim. I have cited facts. Would you mind disclosing which of my statements you claim to be an exaggeration, and what your information source is that is so much better than mine? You want to make a claim, back it up, or leave, again.

GothicChessInventor 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can play word games if you like to avoid my use of the word "popularity". Note that I was not confining myself merely to that specific word nor your remarks within this section. The evidence of your extreme claims litters the internet for any objective reader to easily search, find and verify. [Some of it exists right here on Wikipedia.] After all, you have been passionately bragging about the wonders of Gothic Chess (your commercial product) for several years.
The truth is that the Zillions Of Games program, despite its universal game-playing capabilities, was a disappointment to Mallett & Lefler as a business effort. Now, you expect everyone to believe that Gothic Vortex, a program dedicated to playing only one game well, is a major business success and that The Gothic Chess Federation is nearly as large as The US Chess Federation. Well, I am in communication with many people and noone believes it. Economically, chess variants is a sector as flat as a pancake. So, don't just yell at me- yell at everyone!
I am trying to be supportive here yet you just don't appreciate it.
--BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Derek,

You read my remarks and fill in whatever you want in your own mind. I never claimed to be "as large as" the United States Chess Federation. I said I have ALMOST SOLD AS MANY BOARDS as there are CURRENT MEMBERS which is certainly true. I don't have a 1:1 relationship between board sales and members, and never claimed I did. If the USCF had one member for everyone who had a chess board in their closet they would have millions of members and not 85,000.

"Litter the internet" -- another vague reference not furnished with links.

Gothic Vortex sales -- From what I can tell, about 1% of the downloads convert to a sale. There are about 400 downloads per day from the Gothic Chess site. There are tens of thousands of other downloads from all of the other places that distribute Gothic Vortex far and wide.

There are 3 version of Gothic Vortex for sale: a $30 version, a $75 version, and a $250 version.

I sell 4 of the $250 variety each week, about 7 of the $30 version each day, and about 10 of the $75 version each week.

Weekly sales: $1,000 + $1050 (5-day business week) + $750 = $2800/week x 52 weeks = $145,600 per year.

I think I "overestimated" $150,000 per year, so shoot me.

GothicChessInventor 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the sources we have to date....

here is my take on the sources found to date;

A reliable source (peer reviewed journal), but is problematic because guidelines say sources should be '"Independent of the subject" [which] excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject' (from WP:N)
This is good - I'm hoping Andreas may be able to find some more of these. I think we'd need several to establish notability beyond doubt. Can we confirm the author?
I don't have this magazine myself, so I can't say anything about the article author or content. Andreas Kaufmann 07:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Textbook - the hardback textbook referred to by Ed.
do we have any information on the authors ( H.J. van den Herik, H. Iida, and E.A. Heinz), or the nature of Gothic Chess' mention? Also, there seems to be some conflation between the game Gothic Chess, and the work that Ed has done in AI / Game technology - this book on the face of it seems to be more focussed on the technological side of things.
this certainly shows that Gothic Chess is a product out there, but I'm not certain how to apply this source to establish notability - it doesn't seem to hit the mark really.

From these 4 sources, we're asked to discount the first because it's not 'independant of the subject', and the last because it's essentially advertising - this leaves the middle 2.

Every article requires reliable sources which offer significant (non-trivial) coverage. I'm not certain the British magazine, and the Dutch textbook are enough.

I seem to recall that Ed has mentioned newspaper coverage previously (perhaps through the Fisher connection, or from a tournament of some kind?) - if we can find some of those sources, such articles will probably help immeasurably to shore up this article's notability. That is what I'm trying to ensure occurs.... Purples 01:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

there is of course the patent as well - that's a good 'un....! - Purples 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting some of the sources Gothic Chess has already outlived. For example, N.O.S.T. is dead, but a US Chess Federation article from April 2001 describes the kNights Of The Square Table (NOST) where Gothic Chess was played via correspondence. This was in the April 2001 issue of Chess Life magazine, written by Alex Dunne

http://www.uschess.org/cc/dunne/alexapr01.html

The Fihankra Chess Club:

http://shahrukh.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_archive.html

A quote from that page:

"The games are easily adjourned, and the conversation can be more involved. Tournaments are heavily discussed, and the Chess Ladder, as well as the Gothic Chess Ladder, are quite active. In particular the Gothic Chess Ladder has an Archive of completed games and I have designed a “Skittles Room” whereby players may look into the positions of other players on the Ladder. The analysis of the games is also building up well. Much of the site is free"

Avler Chess talks about Gothic Chess sponsoring Raymond Keene:

http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-misc/Ray_of_Sunshine_260195.html

"GM Raymond Keene, author of more than 130 chess and other books, is being sponsored by Gothic Chess, a chess variant that adds two new pieces to the traditional 16 in each player's army: a chancellor, moving like a Rook or a knight (pictured), and an archbishop, moving like a bishop or a knight."

A while discussion of Gothic Chess on the Rybka forum:

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

From International Larry Kaufman, who convinced the Rybka programmer to let him write the piece values for that strong program (scroll down to 2007--08-21 at 20:38) He is talking about having played me a game of Gothic Chess.

"I don't have much interest in variants that are totally different than chess, but Gothic appeals to me as it is basically normal chess with two new pieces, so most of what we know about chess would still apply. What is your level in normal chess? I ask just to better assess your good results against Vortex in Gothic chess. It sounds like Gothic programs need a rather different eval than normal chess programs. Yes, when I played I tried to exchange the new pieces on the grounds that Mr. Trice would be much more skilled at their use than I would be as a beginner."

And from Vasik Rajlich, programmer of Rybka himself (scroll down to 2007--08-22 at 10:02):

"'ve talked to Ed a few times. He's marketing Gothic chess quite energetically, it might well catch on.

As for Gothic Rybka, or Rybka for other variants - in general, it could be possible, although right now there are many things higher on the priority list.

Vas"

Gothic Chess being played on dracis.com:

http://www.dracis.com/stats/best/11/?money

There was also some Gothic Chess being discussed in the USCF Executive Committee Meeting Minutes from January 2001, I can no longer find the Google link to that. There was also my September 2003 offer to bail out the nearly bankrupt USCF when I offered $600,000 to CFO Stanley Booze (his real name, can you believe that?) in exchange just to have one Gothic Chess article in every issue of every magazine thereafter, but I think Yasser Sierawan bailed them out of their $280,000 debt. I know that was online also.

I mean, how much more notable do we need to be?

There is this French article:

http://www.france-echecs.com/index.php?mode=showComment&art=20051223003156261

We had a dedicated site in Austria:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051213012003/http://www.gothicchess.at/

There are "copycat" Wikipedia sites out there:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Gothic_chess

At some point in time Wikipedia will just look foolish if they are the only one that doesn't have a Gothic Chess article.

GothicChessInventor 03:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] for ease of ref.

The sources so far - mainly for my ease of reference - please do add to the list below with (very) short summaries;

I still fear that really all most of these sources prove is Gothic Chess' existence as oppose to notability per our guidelines. I'm going to let this lie for a little while though, because fortunately there's no rush! - Purples 06:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are the one issuing blanket statements without backing them up. What was mentioned already satisfies ALL of the notable guidelines.

"Significant coverage" -- articles in multiple languages from multiple sources, and the list furnished was not even comprehensive. This criterion is met, obviously.

"Reliable" -- Books, professional journals, and newspaper sources all appear in the links at the bottom of the Gothic Chess page. This criterion is met, obviously.

"Sources," -- Again, as defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, the most objective evidence of notability has been provided.

"Independent of the subject" -- Obviously not all were writtten by me nor anyone associated with Gothic Chess. In particular, the Gothic Chess programs and newspaper articles were clearly not mine. The discussion about Gothic Chess by the world's best programmer (Vas) and the guy who helped with his piece weights (Kaufman, who played me Gothic Chess and likes Gothic Chess) are obviously notable, independent of how you try to downplay it.

So, Gothic Chess is notable, end of story. No amount of "wishing otherwise" can change that. It passes the criteria set forth by Wikipedia.

GothicChessInventor 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal lines

Can we please stop leaving random horizontal lines all over the place? It makes the discussion harder to read and there is no reason for them to be there. Hut 8.5 19:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not "all over the place."
As I said before, if I have to scroll for more than one page's worth of text, and I am actively involved in the discussion (and you are not) I will put in the lines as needed. STOP editing my lines, I can't find where the most recent discussion has left off and I will CONTINUE to demarcate the boundaries for long, long discussions, as is my right to do so.
Also, I responded to you on your personal page, so why did you feel the need to put a comment here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GothicChessInventor (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 September 2007
You can use indents and subheadings like everyone else. I posted here in case other people monitoring this talk page want to have a say. Hut 8.5 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a note of support for Hut's points - Ed, it's not considered a big deal for editors to refactor others' comments if they differ significantly from (best) practice round here - try not to get too upset about it, because it's really not intended in that way.... Purples 06:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic Chess Review

I am concerned about using "Gothic Chess Review" as a reference here, because there does not appear to be any WP:VERIFY-level proof about the existence of this magazine. A Google search only shows 63 hits for "Gothic Chess Review", mainly links to web discussion postings where someone, allegedly Ed Trice, talking about the magazine. [One link] has Ed Trice allegedly promise "I am in the process of making Gothic Chess Review a PDF-download that people can take off of the website whenever they want to.". However, that was over a year ago and the Gothic Chess website currently does not have any links to Gothic Chess Review.

I encourage User:GothicChessInventor to give us a link where we may download Gothic Chess review, in particular the back issues which were referenced to in the Gothic Chess Wikipedia article, so we can verify that this magazine really exists. Until then, I have removed the references to Gothic Chess Review from the Wikipedia article. Just to clarify 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree up to a point with the lack of notability of the reference, I think it might be jumping to conclusions to say that it doesn't exist. Some "proof" of some sort would be nice, but simply removing the cites from the article now means we have sentences that aren't sourced.
We have two options; either leave the cites as they are, or remove both the cites and the sentences (there's no middle ground here). As an act of WP:AGF, let's leave the cites for now, and thrash this out here on the talk page. Oli Filth 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will leave the refs for now. The references are, for the record, "Gothic Chess Review", Fall 2003, and "Gothic Chess Review", Winter 2004. As soon as these issues are available for download, or some other reasonable proof of the magazine's existence is posted, I will have no problem referencing this magazine. I am a little worried about WP:SPS, but I don't think that's an issue with naming openings (the Fall 2003 reference). However, WP:SPS is somewhat of an issue with the "most theorists conclude that having a material advantage per se is less important in Gothic Chess" sentence, allegedly from "Gothic Chess Review", Winter 2004. Just to clarify 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I completely agree with the above. Oli Filth 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


"JustToVerify" is Claude Jeruchim, the person who took GothicChessLive.com offline due to his misrepresentation of his abilities to program the site. He had 2 years to complete a contract that he originally said could be done in 90 days. He still hasn't completed his contract, and is in breach of it. Furthermore, he has seen at least 3 different issues of Gothic Chess Review.

Therefore, his post is not "in good faith."

Gothic Chess Review is a physical publication mailed out 4 times per year. Each magazine is exactly 28 pages. Back issues are available for $5 each, which includes postage. Send me an email to GothicChessInfo@aol.com with a paypal email address you have, and I will bill you the $5 for your magazine.

GothicChessInventor 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


You seem to create quite a following. neoliminal 22:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


The organization is 9 years old this October 16, and has been selling since December 2000. Just because you are new to it doesn't mean we have not been around since before you heard of us. People subscribe to the magazine since the days of the Gothic Chess Association, which goes back to 2001. I don't "create" a following, I have already created one, and it is a growing base. Why else woud so many of you be trying so hard to make it appear to be less than it already is?

GothicChessInventor 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More values to add

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1986;pid=25175;msg=PstChange#pid25175

Referencing this web page we can see a collection, including Trice's, of values for the pieces. Would someone, other than me, please enter these values. You can feel free to enter mine as well, but I will not, as I have stated before.

neoliminal 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"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." -- noted in that same thread and confirmed by Trice.

Kaufman's Values

1.0 Pawn 3.0 Knight 3.0 Bishop 5.0 Rook 7.75 Archbishop 8.5 Chancellor 9.0 Queen

Would someone, other than me, please enter these values. You can feel free to enter mine as well, but I will not, as I have stated before.

neoliminal 17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't reference it to a forum. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Hut 8.5 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And some quotes from Larry's orginal interview in the January 2001 issue of Gothic Chess Review:--Ed Trice

"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."

The inventor of the game has sited his on periodical "Gothic Chess Review" January 2001 as the source. Sorry I didn't include that in the original posting. neoliminal 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If it can be cited to Gothic Chess Review, and we accept Gothic Chess Review as a valid source, then you can probably just go and add it. People with a conflict of interest are supposed to get consensus on the talk page before making changes, but as no-one's objected in a week I think we can say that you've satisfied that requirement. Hut 8.5 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that Larry Kaufman revised his values after further reflection:

Kaufman's New Values

1.0 Pawn 3.0 Knight 3.5 Bishop 5.5 Rook 8.0 Archbishop 9.5 Chancellor 10.5 Queen

I wont argue that these haven't been printed anywhere if Ed promises to print a retraction/correction in the next Gothic Chess Review. Technically they shouldn't be used but they are the values that Larry has settled on. neoliminal 01:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I put the numbers of 8 different authors into a spreadsheet to compare certain piece trades. That spreadsheet is here:

http://www.gothicchess.com/10x8_values.xls

Also note: Larry remembers being interviewed for Gothic Chess Review from 2001 (although he did not remember the exact values he discussed at the time.) He mentions this on the Rybka Forum. Some people still seem to think this publication does not/did not exist just because there is no internet version of it, yet the author of Rybka's evaluation function confirms participation in one issue from 6 years ago.

GothicChessInventor 04:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Why are the piece values for "unknown" included? After all, who is "unknown" and why should you (or I) care what he-she-it thinks?
2. Does not it concern you that the Trice piece values are comparatively compressed with respect all other credible sets- specifically those by Kaufmann, Scharnagl-SMIRF and Nalls?
--BenWillard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Derek,

I don't answer people that talk about themselves in the third person. I also know why you chose that name and why you tell people you chose it. So drop the pretense.

GothicChessInventor 04:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My questions were about your piece values, not me. You failed to answer. Thus, I can only conclude that either you had no answer or your answer would have been a failure. --BenWillard

I can't help it if you failed to understand the mathematical basis for the differences, despite the fact I have explained it many times over, and over. All of the other authors computed 10x8 values based on 10x8 pawn weights. Since I didn't know what a 10x8 pawn was worth, I elected to normalize my values on what I did know: namely, the 8x8 pawn value.

I computed my 10x8 values based on what an 8x8 pawn was worth. Since there are 25% fewer pawns on the 8x8 board, each pawn is more valuable (more scarce) than a 10x8 pawn. Also, a 10x8 pawn can promote to a Chancellor and Archbishop, options unavailable to an 8x8 pawn, so the average value of promotion goes down for a 10x8 pawn (sum of weights divided by promotion choices.)

Going from 8x8 pawns (strong pawns) to 10x8 pawns (weaker pawns) would scale the weights up. So, if my 10x8 Rook = 4.75 8x8 pawns, how many 10x8 pawns is it worth? Answer: More.

Recall I wanted to publish my paper without giving away the Gothic Vortex evaluation function, and I suceeded in doing just that.

GothicChessInventor 04:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was mistaken. You did have a rational answer after all. You were just too lazy or arrogant to explain it until slighted. Of course, you caused this miscommunication.
I do not doubt that you have previously explained your method of valuing the pawn upon the 10x8 board elsewhere, somewhere. You just never explained it previously in detail and with clarity on Wikipedia. By the way, I never claimed nor should I fairly be expected to have read everything you have ever written at The Gothic Chess Federation or at various places on the internet even though I have read everything I could find that you have written regarding piece values.
Anyway, your material value for the pawns have been calculated in error [too high]. Consequently, your scale of material values for all CRC pieces upon the 10x8 board has been moderately compressed from its ideal, flat (uncompressed and unexpanded) state.
The following corrections should be helpful to you-
On average, a pawn upon the 10x8 board is slightly more valuable than upon the 8x8 board.
A. Upon the 10x8 board, there are 2 edge pawns and 8 interior pawns. Interior pawns readily have the ability to capture in both diagonal directions at opening setup. Edge pawns readily have the ability to capture in only one diagonal direction at opening setup. Only an interior capture (which is 1/2 as likely) will reposition a pawn from an edge file to an interior file.
B. For the limited purposes of calculating the material value of the pawn, the promotion potential to the most valuable piece is the only one that matters. Moreover, the queen is worth more upon the 10x8 board than the 8x8 board due to its increased mobility. [This would be obvious to you if your scale of values were not compressed.]
C. The 8 pawns in FRC comprise half of the pieces per player that start the game (16) likewise as the 10 pawns in CRC comprise half of the pieces per player that start the game (20). Thus, their rarities are equal, requiring no adjustment. In fact, non-trivial adjustment for the rarity of a piece is generally only needed for the most valuable piece(s) within the game, anyway.
You should openly discuss more about the evaluation function of Gothic Vortex with other chess AI programmers instead of keeping it a state secret. Then, experts would be able to give you ideas to improve the efficiency of your program and make it play even stronger.
You need to re-calculate from scratch the material value of the pawn directly upon the 10x8 board instead of extrapolating its established value upon the 8x8 board to the 10x8 board. It reduces the margin of error and appropriately customizes the calculation to fit the details of the CRC (instead of FRC) class of games.
Please keep your mind open enough to learn from others who are considerate enough to convey useful information to you, regardless of whether or not you dislike-hate them? That is what I do.
--BenWillard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patent situation

80.134.3.211 10:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Patent US6481716 (Method of playing a variant of chess) expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee (gazette date 2007-01-16), i.e. the patent is no longer valid. Source: Family Legal Status Report for US6481716 at http://www.delphion.com

It is also listed as expired at uspto.gov - Notice of Expiration of Patents --Mosquitopsu 22:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this info - I've removed the patent info from the lead as undue weight. I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to mention the patent in the lead anyway, but it seems particularly unnecessary given its expiration. thanks, Purples 23:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; how is it wrong to point out that it had a patent and then had it removed in the lead?? --Agüeybaná 23:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a key point of information about Gothic Chess. What is important is to describe exactly what the game is - not the history of its patents (have a look at Monopoly_(game) for example). If you feel the information is relevant and important, it perhaps could be incorporated into the body of the article somewhere, but I'm not sure that I agree it should be mentioned at all! - Purples 23:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. A separate section it is. Glad to do business with ya' :-) --Agüeybaná 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The patent pages that are autogenerated by USPTO simply ping their internal databases for checks received by names of patent owners and crossreference patent ID numbers. It's not an elaborate system and it can't crossreference temporary Power of Attorney transfers. The maintenance fee check for patent 6481716 was paid by Trice's attorney in 2006 when he was in Iceland negotiating the Fischer-Karpov match deal. The list gets updated periodically and it will reflect the validity of the patent on the next run. Interestingly, the G.A.O. cites that the USPTO's expired patent listing as being no more than 90% accurate at any given time (August, 2004, U.S. News & World Report.)

ChessHistorian 11:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you query the database through their website, https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do with the the patent number: 6481716, and application number: 09858361, it says that the patent has expired. It it still inaccurate, even though its been over year? --Mosquitopsu 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As another data point, it is listed as an expired patent here. Yes, legally you can get an expired patent renewed within 2 years after a patent expires if "if the delay [in the patent payment] is shown to the satisfaction of the Director to have been unintentional" [1] or anytime "if the delay is shown to the satisfaction of the Director to have been unavoidable", but there is no evidence shown that this was done. Just to clarify 22:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It has not been over a year. The list is published the first week of January every calendar year. Various Law Journals publish quarterly updates. I called Ed on the phone (I interviewed him for the Baltimore Sun Times in May of 2007, and his number is readily available) and he gave me an ISSN number of a periodical to look up. And, sure enough, in June 2007 it was removed from the list. The online source is only updated once per year, so in January 2008, you'll see the patent in "good standing" according to the online world.

It's funny how you guys are "online only" as if there are no other sources in the whole world.

ChessHistorian 07:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the confusion, perhaps its best if we just don't refer to the patent, as mentioned, i don't believe the article will suffer unduly, cheers...... Purples 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, if it's notable, it should be included. Also, we're not "online only"; if you can cite the source here, as required by WP:CITE, then fine. But, the interview is not a reliable source; that's original research. --Agüeybaná 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Right now, we have references that say the patent has expired. If you have references to say it hasn't, online or otherwise, then cite them here and the article will be corrected. Hut 8.5 16:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

<Legal threat removed by kmccoy (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)>

GothicChessInventor 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats will result in blocking per our policy. kmccoy (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example Game

An example game should ideally show, the case of a chess variant, a difference in the style of play and feature the attributes of that variant. neoliminal 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that nobody has removed the Example Game from the Seirawan chess page. If it is allowed to be on that page, I think the example game from Gothic Chess needs to be restored.

GothicChessInventor 03:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FISHING. If you want to discuss that example game, do it on Talk:Seirawan chess, not here. Hut 8.5 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
yeah, sorry Ed - I've gotta agree with Hut. It doesn't really matter what's happening at other articles, we've just got to discuss what's best here and now. I think I'd probably ask for example games to be removed wherever I found them - and I do really think that the article we've got at the moment here is actually better for that section not being in - having said that, an argument based on our rules saying why it would work, and be useful may be possible - but that's the way it would have to be, not just a comparison with somewhere else.! Purples 13:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Either example games are allowable, or they aren't allowable. It should be universally applied, unless you guys removed the game for your own biased reasons (like it showed a World Class Grandmaster playing the game, and you are envious of the fact that the game is obviously so successful.) ChessHistorian 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Historian, that's just an idea of yours - in fact we have very few 'universally applied' decisions, it's much better for editors to really take a good look at the context in pretty much every case. You're a bit (!) wide of the mark to think that a nasty anti-grandmaster bias is at work here, I reckon we're all just trying to make the best possible article. Purples 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
To satisfy your whims, I've started a discussion on Talk:Seirawan chess to this effect, although I've seen you've already deleted the section (I agree that it should it be removed, although I believe you've removed it to make a point). Oli Filth(talk) 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The fairy pieces

The movement of the two new pieces, archbishop and chancellor, is not defined in the article. Pete St.John (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. How could the most important part of this article have been missed all this time? Wiki FTW again, by Mahound! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the fairy chess pieces wikilink, it describes their movements there. Adding this information to the gothic chess article would be unnecessarily redundant. Wiki FTW indeed. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If I played any Fairy Chess myself, I'd follow the link, find the subsections for "archbishop" and "counsellor", and then link to those sections from those words in the article here. Pete St.John (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who modified the endgame section?

I don't agree with this statement, currently in the Endgame section:

"The principles of chess endgame apply in Gothic Chess. With the two new pieces, several new endgame positions arise, such as chancellor vs. chancellor with several pawns each or archbishop and pawns vs. queen and pawns. These endgames are somewhat similar to queen and pawn endgames, where the dominant theme is for the strong side to avoid perpetual check and achieve a pawn promotion."

First, in taking a look at my 164 games played on a site hosting turn-based play, there is only one endgame that distilled to Chancellor and Pawns vs. Chancellor and Pawns.

The list of all of these games: http://www.gothicchess.com/javagames/brainking_db/players/GrimReaper.html

And the one Chancellor and Pawn ending: http://www.gothicchess.com/javagames/brainking_db/players/GrimReaper/023/game.htm

Second, "several new endgame positions arise" is a vast understatement. For example, there are 196 different endgame with only 5 pieces on the board, if you include the 1 king for each side in the count.

For example:

King + Knight + Knight vs. King + Queen
King + Knight + Knight vs. King + Chancellor
King + Knight + Knight vs. King + Archbishop
King + Knight + Knight vs. King + Rook
King + Knight + Knight vs. King + Bishop
King + Knight + Knight vs. King + Knight
King + Knight + Knight vs. King + Pawn

King + Bishop + Knight vs. King + Queen
King + Bishop + Knight vs. King + Chancellor
King + Bishop + Knight vs. King + Archbishop
King + Bishop + Knight vs. King + Rook
King + Bishop + Knight vs. King + Bishop
King + Bishop + Knight vs. King + Knight
King + Bishop + Knight vs. King + Pawn

King + Rook + Knight vs. King + Queen
King + Rook + Knight vs. King + Chancellor
King + Rook + Knight vs. King + Archbishop
King + Rook + Knight vs. King + Rook
King + Rook + Knight vs. King + Bishop
King + Rook + Knight vs. King + Knight
King + Rook + Knight vs. King + Pawn

King + Archbishop + Knight vs. King + Queen
King + Archbishop + Knight vs. King + Chancellor
King + Archbishop + Knight vs. King + Archbishop
King + Archbishop + Knight vs. King + Rook
King + Archbishop + Knight vs. King + Bishop
King + Archbishop + Knight vs. King + Knight
King + Archbishop + Knight vs. King + Pawn

King + Chancellor + Knight vs. King + Queen
King + Chancellor + Knight vs. King + Chancellor
King + Chancellor + Knight vs. King + Archbishop
King + Chancellor + Knight vs. King + Rook
King + Chancellor + Knight vs. King + Bishop
King + Chancellor + Knight vs. King + Knight
King + Chancellor + Knight vs. King + Pawn

King + Queen + Knight vs. King + Queen
King + Queen + Knight vs. King + Chancellor
King + Queen + Knight vs. King + Archbishop
King + Queen + Knight vs. King + Rook
King + Queen + Knight vs. King + Bishop
King + Queen + Knight vs. King + Knight
King + Queen + Knight vs. King + Pawn

King + Pawn + Knight vs. King + Queen
King + Pawn + Knight vs. King + Chancellor
King + Pawn + Knight vs. King + Archbishop
King + Pawn + Knight vs. King + Rook
King + Pawn + Knight vs. King + Bishop
King + Pawn + Knight vs. King + Knight
King + Pawn + Knight vs. King + Pawn

And all of the above is just the subset of all possible endgames where the side with 3 pieces has 1 or more knights. There are 42 more endgames with 1 or more bishops for the side with 3 pieces, 35 more endgames beyond that with 1 or more rooks, 28 more endgames beyond that with 1 or more archbishops, 21 more endgames beyond that with 1 or more chancellors, 14 more endgames with 1 or more queens, and 7 endgames where the one side has 2 pawns.

I'm not sure who wrote the current synopsis listed on Wikepedia, but it oversimplifies the Gothic Chess endgame by several orders of magnitude. Also, the statement:

"... the dominant theme is for the strong side to avoid perpetual check and achieve a pawn promotion."

misses the truly most dominant theme: checkmate!

So many of these endgames are brutal mates that force the conclusion in a manner we humans don't expect. When I see how the tablebases play some of these mates, I am shocked. The endgame tablebases don't care about human observations nor about trying to summarize statements as the ones shown here that I don't agree with, the tablebases mate as quickly as possible and 'strategy' is not a factor at all.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing Gothic Chess games

I agree that Gothic Chess games should not be put in the Wikipedia article. However, I think it would be OK to make a Wikibook discussing Gothic Chess strategy, including example games, like the Arimaa strategy guide. Just to clarify (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)