Variant collaboration!

I might reply later when no longer pissed off. Aside from that. This thread is closed. You ruined it with clutter. Making a new one. Thanks!

I'll try to remember all of what I wrote....not that that's going to happen.....

OK first of I said start off that Nothing was final till I said it was. I warned everyone in that thread. I also said once I am finished I would make a new thread because that one was full of me and Muller talking about winboard, pages of just trying to match up in games, as well as adjustments. Most all of which no person looking at the thread for the first time. Wants to go through 15+pages of crap. Just to get the tiny actually pieces of info. Same reason I already remade this one. Also there were a few  threads before even that one. Here are a couple of them.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/could-someone-make-me-a-chess-game-with-no-ai-if-i-paid-them

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/new-chess-variant-close-to-omega-chess

My game has always been meant to be built around a program. Even before H.G.Muller was nice enough to show me that winboard could do 80% of what I wanted. Before I made it into the stupid simple game, I wanted to pay someone to make. Meaning I could do far more closer to what I wanted then I thought any program was going to do for me. Mainly because winboard is free. Plus he modded it in several ways. To allow for the black tiles, to function right.  As well as making queen castling work.

I still could not do a few things. Like have all the pieces I liked, as well as the graphics to fit them. So I took them out. While using a few graphics I did not like at all for needed pieces. My original gambits and armored horses were both ferz based, to begin with. I changed to king. Yet I still needed to test them. Upon seeing how they made protecting child’s play. I saw how broken it was. So I put the back to how they were. I wrote all this before so I'm not getting into the dumb horse and snake think again. Plus more people agreed to the change being good. Plus I made it so now every non-royal piece has a counterpart.

The thing I said I never wanted to change was solely the castling row. I gave a lot of reason way. On I did not know till recently I could even move the damn rooks. So till I did figure it out, I could not add the piece or change that row. Upon learning I could move it over, it just needs to be the last piece. Let me address half the issue. Still wanted that row the same aside from what I wanted to bring in. Yet winboard could not do it. Upon getting my graphics I was also given a new pieces limit. Letting me add the pieces I wanted between the rook and shield (old elephant graphic). Plus even most the other ones I always wanted in it. Letting me even the slider to leaper ratio back out. Though adding those new pieces changed the game layout too much. So I made Warboard.

The only real new ideas were the prince/ss and redoing the pawn case. Because it just needed it. I finish AOC by taking the best layout then adding the pawns. I fixed the issue of there being that one opening that could not be blocked without messing up your own placement. Without changing the row I wanted to cheap how it was. While at the same time fixing the issue of the prince/ss took too long to get out to ever care for one to use them, till too late in the game. By moving them up, it fixed both.

I could not even get ten test games in any of those layouts without finding all sorts of issues. I play over 40 of each of these. Plus pay 5 different people $1 per game and $20 if they could beat me. They all played at least 2 games. I let them pick the game. Thankfully I only lost one game. Plus they all picked AOC over warboard. Because no one wanted to remember or look at the print out, to remember the dragon & phoenix’s moves.(old star & snake graphics). Which are in warboard.  I can’t find an issue, were the other versions did not make it even ten plays. Most not more than two plays. I was just sick of playing myself for a bit.

The one board you like me trying a 12 long I was testing for the very first time. This did not even allow for a decent partial defense. Plus the issues listed above. While making a certain opening, even more of an issue.

I made this because I was finally finished. I also did everything fast and took made time to get a new layout with all the pieces to be winboard. Not showing the tests changes or asking for input online. That way I don’t have write all the crap explaining stuff like I am now. They are not changing. I made everything how I want it. If I make a new game, then it will use the pieces before you.  So there is nothing new to learn.  I know I wrote about a whole lot of other stuff, that I can not remember. I never read more than half that clutter post. Fix it if you want me to finish it.

Again, with the endless jibber and jabber.

Do you honestly think anyone has the time and energy to follow along?

Hi guys.I've interested if you all feature chessplus on your site.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/decreasing-draws-result

It is important to have stats for this variant regarding draws issue.I appreciate if you take a consideration on it.

BattlechessGN18,I am sorry,i have limited time to play your variant.Even i am not very often to play standard chess.

If you want to know the effect on drawishness, just let Fairy-Max or Sjaak II play a few thousand games against themselves or each other.

A much more interesting idea I encountered recently to reduce drawishness of orthodox Chess is to award black some end-game advantage. E.g. that stalemate is a win for black, or that he is allowed to pass a turn, or kan win by baring white's King. This would put much more pressure on white to use his first-move advantage to decide the game before the black advantage makes itself felt.

I see the progress in your view of this matter.But if we simulate this using chess engine,it won't fit with the actual circumstances necessity of human chess.It is because chess engine always be absolute consistent through out their moves and choices.Thus the drawish end is understandable.In the other hand,human chess will involving personal favor and depth analysis inconsistencies.Thus human chess is vulnerable of blunder.That is it.

I will be glad if you could actualize this variant.

For people that blunder Chess is not drawish in the first place...

Yes.This more complex variant should give the higher blunder probability.That is why we need an actual stats by applying this variant to huge amount chess players.And compare the result with standard chess (current official set) stats.

To get a higher blunder probability one typically makes the game more tactical, by adding super-pieces. Adding weak pieces makes the game more strategical, as these often require good long-term planning.

You have stated this idea in other thread.There is a weakness of super pieces.They are usually easily noticeable by the opponent,because of their high potential role in a game.Therefore,even though they could make a wide damages,their presence could still be located in player's attention scope.It could lead to draws end by two strong players.On the other hand,the weak pieces will hardly noticeable because of their minor role in a game.Thus,they will act as a surprising factor that lead to non drawish game.

If you could make it,i hope it will boost your site traffic.

In reality it is just the opposite from what you say, though. Super-pieces appear by surprise, as their immense power allows them to swish from one place to almost every other place in an instant. While weak pieces (and especially the non-royal King) moves slowly, and you already see it coming 3 moves before it actually attacks anything.

Note that I actually don't have a site with any traffic. You are welcome to set one up using my software, however, and try your luck with it.

Maybe it is interesting to try both variations.The one with super pieces and the other one with weak pieces.

This of course has already been tried in many forms. With super-pieces you have for instance Chancellor Chess (9x8), Prime-Minister Chess (9x8), Capablanca / Gothic Chess on 10x8, and Seirawan Chess on 8x8. The non-royal King has been used in Roman Chess (on 10x10). And with an intermediate (Rook-class) piece: Captain Chess (9x8).

Thanks.I'll make it online.

I wonder what any of this had to do with Ace's variant; and why you specifically chose to go off topic to talk about it in this thread. (You already made a thread on your variant, and you weren't advertising it in any other threads.)

Sorry BCG18.Just offer a collaboration.No other intention.

I see.

Yeah. Right, Erick.

No one really knows what you rant on and on about, since no one actually cares for your variants, let alone all the insiginificant details of it; which is hardly comprehendsible, since it's just a stream of puff and powder on the aspects of your large boards, which you create in a fickle.

I'm sorry that my confrontation struck you a nerve. I really am. (What's funny is that you call ME emotional; and that "all [I] care about is winning, even when [I'm] wrong." *roll eyes*)

Why don't you actually focus on the point I made? It is this: your earlier version was good, and it should have been built upon; rather than starting all these new variants in a fickle. Forget the involment of my variation on it.

The reason why most people say they don't want to try your variants is more than just the fact that your variants are overly large (since people in history have playe large variants): It's more so the fact that you create them with very little thought as to why they should come to existence; anyone could take a massive dimensional board and randomly assemble pieces with random powers onto it just to make it look good. What's the point, though? (I had many reasons for my variation to your (earlier) variant, see?)

As I've told you time and again, you lost my vote when we were working the one variant, only for you to discard it and start a whole stack of others in a matter of days, creatingly them almostly mindlessly as you go; how do we know these new ones are actually final? Haven't you said that many times before?

If you're actually devoted to creating a worhtwhile meaningful variants, it's time for you to actually put substance into it. I'm just saying.