[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by DerekNalls
'You bet on one number, and when you lose, (the typical result), you do what? Increase the bet?' Yes. It is a 'negative progression' betting scheme where (by definition) you raise the bet after losses to recover them if you win. This one advances as slowly as possible, with minimal profits, in order for your cash stakes, within limits of the lowest and highest allowed bets, to last as many spins as possible without busting. In this manner, risk is minimized. The paper, now 40 pages, was substantially revised late June 15 to include the calculation of a weighted average profit. Accordingly, I now classify this betting scheme as a highly negative investment and advise that it should never be used. This can be regarded as just another mathematical demonstration of the folly of gambling. [At least, with games of pure luck and no element of skill.]
Facebook http://www.facebook.com It's a good way for some of us to stay in communication with one another.
Three Dimensional Chess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_chess ALL external links to 3-D chess variants that do not already have their own Wikipedia pages have been deleted by a high-ranking editor 'MrOllie' who apparently knows nothing about this subject. He is incorrectly applying two Wikipedia guidelines to justify his wholesale destructive action: external links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL neutral point of view due & undue weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight Essentially, the current state of the article is that it only mentions or even, references Raumschach, (Star Trek) Tri-Dimensional Chess, Cubic Chess and Dragonchess. The existence of all other 3-D chess variants has been gutted from the literature. Unfortunately, ordinary editors rarely win a dispute, regardless of right & wrong, against high-ranking editors at Wikipedia unless an overwhelming number of experts make their views known as editors. I intend to.
I also largely agree with the direction (and condition) of this article. It is only the purging of ALL external links to individual 3-D chess variants that I take exception to. Admittedly, I have a conflict of interest since I invented 'Spherical Chess 400'- one of the casualties of this recent edit. This is the reason I would rather not get personally involved in an edit war on this Wikipedia page. In other words, I would prefer someone else (who is plausibly neutral) to do it. Please understand that I realize my game does not meet the notability requirements for direct mention in this article? However, a single reference to my game's web site in the 'Other variants of three-dimensional chess' sub-category of 'External links' is appropriate and unassuming. A couple of other quality game web sites (that were purged) merit a single reference as well. I suspect 'MrOllie' simply saved time by NOT examining them at all on a case-by-case basis ... although as an editor, he should have. The link to The Chess Variant Page's directory of 3-D games is certainly a positive attribute for the article but unnecessarily, too indirect.
universal calculation of piece values http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/texts/calc.pdf See pages 42-49. This is my incomplete effort to, amongst others matters, achieve a quantitative, theoretical explanation for the counter-intuitively high value of the archbishop in CRC that was first brought to my attention by Muller's experiments. However, the meaningful context of the select pages referenced will not be fully comprehensible without reading the entire 65-page paper. Anyone is free to create variations of my work with refinements of a different nature and/or extend my work toward something truly 'universal'. In any case, I am convinced that its holistic framework of theory, terminology, factors and calculation has lasting value. I own two fast servers now yet I devote both of their CPU times exclusively to the possibly-futile SETI project. Sorry, no playtesting or piece value experiments anymore.
The moderator(s) are asleep. After a Yahoo mishap, I wish to (re)Join this group. Thank you!
Yes, I agree with Muller's observation that the archbishop is unusually effective against pawn formations in CRC, like no other piece in the game. Moreover, I find your description of pawns as obstacles that create a terrain, usually through the length of a game, insightful and interesting. Unfortunately, valid observations and descriptions often do not have a practical use toward quantitative calculation within a theory. The approach I use within my theory is analogous to describing basic chemistry strictly in terms of atoms and never mentioning molecules even as I find myself in agreement with abstract observations by experts regarding molecules. In other words, I stick exclusively to basic terms and easily calculated factors to achieve results that roughly correspond to measured, established piece values.
JL: You have a lot of imaginative and critical ideas on the subject of piece values. Firstly, I have a couple of constructive recommendations. 1. Read my entire 65-page paper. Work with it until you understand it. [At least, in theory. Preferably, in calculation.] Then, you will be enabled to intelligently revise (and greatly shorten, I am confident) your list of valid objections and problems you find with its theoretical framework. 2. Create your own theory of the 'Universal calculation of piece values' (or whatever you consider appropriate to entitle it) that is roughly consistent with measured, established piece values in FRC & CRC. ________________________________________________ Note that if your work is not substantially shorter than mine at appr. 65 pages, then it has nonetheless failed to achieve the supremely-important, comparative advantage demanded by Occam's Razor- essentially, to produce a simpler or more elegant model that fully accounts for reality. This would render your theory highly suspect of being comparatively, unnecessarily overcomplicated ... despite how much you favored it or how hard you worked on it. Be mindful that the more factors you explicitly accommodate and calculate within your theory, the longer you make it. So, it is critically important to be as discerning as possible about what is and is not non-trivially efficacious to measured piece values. [In other words, leave the rest of your observations and details in your private file notes, not your public, published work.] ... Finally, I should emphasize that my theory is primarily a workable framework of calculation for FRC & CRC piece values and secondarily (by a vast amount) an explanation of the concepts considered important enough to merit calculation as factors. So, I actually have little interest in semantic arguments about these concepts with anyone. Besides, if you convinced me that the concepts I use to calculate are invalid, then my calculations would be thrust into gross inaccuracy against measurable, indisputable reality. I prefer to keep my calculations consistent with established piece values in FRC worldwide and in CRC (esp. Muller's experiments). Hint: It is more important for criticisms to be very well thought through than original works because original works are harder and more time-consuming to create from scratch. Typically, I notice a lot more sloppy, fast hellraising by trolls than conscientious work.
'Then your theory is utterly devoid of value.' Do you really expect me to believe you miraculously know that for certain when you haven't even read the vast majority of it? Therefore, your opinion must be, by your own admission, uninformed... In my (informed) opinion, the theory is of marginal value. Nonetheless, it is one of very few as well as possibly the best neatly-organized and written work in existence even though I am dis-satisfied with it since it has insufficient predictive value across a range of unrelated chess variants. Specifically, it is only proven to work well with games closely related to FRC. I consider this work a valuable, useful resource to anyone in the chess variant community who is working to devise a better theory than mine and appropriately, I will continue to make it available. ________________________________________________ 'If it produces trustworthy results only for the values we already know and does not even provide a believable explanation for why those values should be what they are, then it fails even to confirm what we already know, let alone tell us anything new.' Trustworthy results cannot be recognized as such wherever piece values are unknown. Yet piece values are currently reasonably well established only in FRC & CRC. So, the obstacles to creating an accurate, universal theory are formidable ... if not overwhelming. To the contrary! I find the theoretical explanations for the concepts that are used in calculation within my theory quite believable and even, compelling. ... ___________________________________ 'I am happy to read a 65-page document, or even longer, if a short sample or synopsis suggests it to be worth reading.' ... When offered a usable framework for piece value calculation that only requires arithmetic (some of it based upon plane geometry), you avoid it ... ______________________________________________ 'The sample of your work (selected by you) that I read suggested your ideas are poorly-explained, ill-justified, and at times directly contradictory with observed facts.' Why don't you just admit you got lost and didn't understand the excerpt you read and furthermore, admit you were mistaken to recklessly disregard my follow-up advice to read the entire paper? ______________________________________________________ 'It looks like you simply made up arbitrary modifiers in order to get the quantitative results you were expecting, which is just a way of lying with numbers.' Concepts well known to chess variant theorists (and generally agreed with as being relevant except by radicals) are what drive the piece value calculations. Mathematical modelling can also be a way of telling the truth with numbers (which is my mission). I am aware of its dangers and limitations but I pity any [one] who thinks he/she can possibly devise a successful piece value theory that contradicts important established, measurable, experimental results. Again and again ... no idea what you are talking about! Why? Because you have not read the paper. That exemplifies why I recommended that you read the paper. In the absence of information, you are just ... compounding your errors and misconceptions about it. _____________________________________ '... and that you have no interest in a theory with actual predictive or explanatory power.' I have strong interest in and preference for a theory with predictive and explanatory power. Unfortunately, noone has successfully devised it yet. ________________________ '... And suggesting that I need to have my own universal theory of piece values in order to critique yours is ... not how criticism works in ANY field.' I never stated or meant that writing your own theory is a prerequisite to critiquing mine ... but reading mine is. I rightly place very little value in knee-jerk reactions ... The point of my previous message was not using any unfair exclusivist arguments against you. I was just trying to encourage you to create something constructive and giving sound advice ... Do your homework! Then, we can talk ... about my theory.
Any chance of getting editorial intervention to stop and delete this thread. It is cluttering-up the new comment board. Any significance would be of a purely superstitious nature. I just don't care what was being written exactly 1-3-5-10 years ago and I doubt anyone else does (except George Duke).
Does anyone even know (much less, care) what was happening 500 years ago to the day in the chess variant community?
Concise Guide to Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Superb organization and presentation of a lot of material. It must have taken you a long time.
In a correspondence, L. Lynn Smith once wrote to me that some inventors lacked imagination, that all they ever introduced were 'variants of Chess' instead of 'chess variants' in the sense of infinite possibilities. Unfortunately, if the only mental limitation the people you had trouble with was a lack of imagination, they should be pleased for someone talented or insightful to happen into their midst who has imagination. Apparently, quite the contrary! I think people who have devoted an extreme amount of effort into trying to master a specific game usually have an overwhelming tendency to feel threatened by anyone who recommends ANY rule change, regardless of its merits, because its complex ramifications would change the game throughout and eradicate most/some of what they have learned.
On Designing Good Chess Variants. Design goals and design principles for creating Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Although I regard Muller's list of seven desirable conditions as an excellent guideline (on most points, in my opinion) for being conducive to the possibly of creating a high-quality chess variant (which is pertinent to the title of this thread), the present question as to what defines a chess variant yields fewer conditions. Generally, if a game has a board (2-D or 3-D) with spaces (e.g., square, triangular or hexagonal in 2-D), some (not necessarily all) mobile pieces that occupy those spaces, a turn-based move order [Note: I've never been able to successfully devise a simultaneous move game.] implying two or more players and a winning condition, it is a chess variant. Even capturing (by various means) is not mandatory to this definition. Also, having different piece types and abundances is not mandatory although both are strongly advisable since a lack of variety diminishes tactical depth. So, chess variants actually include many classes of games that are not popularly classified as such. For example: connection games, war games, checkers variants, shogi variants, ultima variants, etc. Furthermore, the hybrid usage of dice, cards, etc to render the overall game one of imperfect information is not prohibited.
'It seems you want to erode the meaning of 'Chess variant', to become synonymous for 'board game'.' I don't have any 'want' whatsoever, in this case. No. Any one-player board game such as a puzzle or solitary connection game is definitely not a chess variant. Therefore, chess variants, even by the most holistic, responsible definition, are merely a subset of board games. _______________________________ 'I think it is very good to have language where you can make a distinction between Chess (variants), Checkers (variants), Go (variants) etc.' I agree that distinctions in language are useful. I also think it is equally important to recognize overwhelming similarities that are often overlooked, disregarded or trivialized.
DH: I highly approve of your system of classification with points. I am left wondering ... Would you please define the term 'chess variants' point-wise relative to the other terms 'chess game', 'chess-like game' and 'chess-related game'? Are all of these other terms intended to be subcategories of 'chess variants'?
In Chess, white has the privilege of choosing his/her favorite, strongest opening playing offense for the game every time. By contrast, black must adapt to whatever opening white uses which is not likely to be his/her favorite, strongest opening playing defense. That is only one reason. There are others.
I hold the opinion that in Chess, a game with a significant first-move-of-the-game advantage for white, it is a win for white with perfect play. [Unfortunately, Chess will be intractable to computer AI solutions of this nature for a very long time to come.] Checkers is a chess variant (by broad definition) also having a white-black turn order where it has been proven to be a draw with perfect play. However, checkers cannot move more than one space per turn (except when jumping enemy pieces). In Chess, a bishop (for example) may move up to seven spaces from where it rests in one turn if it has a clear path. This is comparable to seven consecutive turns in Checkers. That is why I doubt the same result will eventually be discovered for both games with perfect play.
Please do not misconstrue the following remark to imply that any move within a game of Chess is unimportant? However, the very first move in a game (by white) is the most important one and all subsequent moves have slightly, progressively diminishing importance. This is another clue.
"The first move in a game of Chess isn't even CLOSE to the most important one in a typical game." Obviously, additional explanation of my meaning is needed. In terms of a chain of events leading to a final outcome ... the first (a move, in the topic under discussion) is always the most important because it has a determinative effect upon not just itself (as the last move of the game does) but all (moves) that follow. Even though the very first move of the game (by white) is not the most exciting, it (moreso than any other move) determines the course of the game as defined by its unique move list. In Chess, where a strict white-black turn order exists, all hypothetical talk of non-existent double-move options is completely irrelevant. "I also see no particular reason to think that a Bishop moving 7 squares has equivalent value to taking 7 consecutive moves in a game of checkers--but if it were true, that would seem to severely undermine your theory that the first move in Chess is the most important one, since no piece can move farther than 2 squares on the first turn." Technically, you have one point that should be addressed. No. White cannot move any piece of unlimited range on the first move of the game. However, by advancing an appropriate pawn on the first move, white can then move a queen or bishop diagonally on the second move of the game. [Note: I don't recommend actually doing so.] The important point is the equal burden of development by white and black does not diminish the significant, measurable first-move-of-the-game advantage by white in Chess which undeniably exists and is all-but-proven statistically via a vast number of reasonably well played games. After all, white has a head start toward this development.
"If I told you we were discussing "value" rather than "importance", would that short-circuit this loop and get us back on topic?" First of all, that's a loaded question, but the answer is NO. Whichever term you prefer, value or importance, is fine with me. If I told you that appr. 50,000 years ago, the only homo sapiens on Earth were a small number in East Africa (probably, black) and that some of the things they did which by objective, modern standards seem relatively unimportant were actually important toward determining the present state of the entire human race, would you fail completely to follow my reasoning? The first event in a cause-effect chain is always supremely important. Do you know what the butterfly effect is?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.