[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by DerekNalls
Inconclusive Report Joker80 Versions Tournament limited randomized vs. non-randomized 60 minutes per move http://www.symmetryperfect.com/report Push the 'download now' button. Muller's assertion that randomization used within the standard version of Joker80 has been responsibly, appropriately limited and controlled so that playing variety is added without measurably reducing playing strength has been tentatively verified over a range of playing times up to 60 minutes per move. The limited randomized (standard) version and non-randomized version of Joker80 have approximately equal playing strength. Despite the expertise and truthfulness of Muller, I could not accept his reassurances at face value. I had to test them. Now, I accept them.
Bug Report http://www.symmetryperfect.com/pass Please examine this game based upon an asymmetrical playtest using an alteration of the mirror of Embassy Chess. An illegal move was attempted that probably pertained to castling. This caused a forfeit.
The *.fen recommended by Hecker allowed me to resume playtesting. In the future, this problem should be avoidable either by manually precluding the potential for attempting or making illegal moves from the *.fen OR by appropriately refining Joker80 and/or Winboard F. Once I moved past the problem, I removed the web page with the bug report. Fortunately, Hecker still possessed the forfeited game *.pgn for Muller to examine.
Bug Report http://www.symmetryperfect.com/bug Push the 'download now' button. Please examine this game based upon an asymmetrical playtest using an alteration of the mirror of Embassy Chess (*.fen). This caused a forfeit. I could have used a manually altered *.fen (as recommended by Hecker) to setup this playtest but I thought the alpha version of Winboard F would probably prevent the problem. It did not.
Bug Report http://www.symmetryperfect.com/bug More details ...
Upon closer consideration, I have decided to cancel 3 out of the 4 planned playtests using Joker80 running under Winboard F to play Embassy Chess (mirror). The reason is that I suspect they are probably untestable conclusively within an achievable amount of time and number of games since differences of less than 5% in value between the CRC pieces under study are expected. Obviously, 'untestable playtests' are oxymorons indicative of a total waste of CPU time. Please allow me to show the numbers behind my thinking based upon the present CRC piece values models of Nalls & Muller. [Unfortunately, I no longer regard the CRC model of Scharnagl as being sufficiently refined in compliance with experimental results to yield accurate, predictive values.] _____________________________ playtest #1 Embassy Chess (mirror) 1 queen missing vs. 2 rooks missing Nalls rook 59.43 queen 115.18 2 rooks / 1 queen = 1.0319 Muller rook 55.88 queen 111.76 2 rooks / 1 queen = 1.0000 __________________________ average (Nalls & Muller) 2 rooks / 1 queen = 1.0160 Conclusion- untestable! _______________________ playtest #2 Embassy Chess (mirror) 1 archbishop missing vs. 1 rook + 1 bishop missing Nalls bishop 37.56 rook 59.43 archbishop 98.22 1 rook + 1 bishop / 1 archbishop = 0.9875 Muller bishop 45.88 rook 55.88 archbishop 102.94 1 rook + 1 bishop / 1 archbishop = 0.9885 __________________________________________ average (Nalls & Muller) 1 rook + 1 bishop / 1 archbishop = 0.9880 Conclusion- untestable! _______________________ playtest #3 Embassy Chess (mirror) 1 chancellor missing vs. 1 rook + 1 bishop missing Nalls bishop 37.56 rook 59.43 chancellor 101.48 1 rook + 1 bishop / 1 chancellor = 0.9558 Muller bishop 45.88 rook 55.88 chancellor 105.88 1 rook + 1 bishop / 1 chancellor = 0.9611 __________________________________________ average (Nalls & Muller) 1 rook + 1 bishop / 1 chancellor = 0.9585 Conclusion- untestable! ________________________ playtest #4 Embassy Chess (mirror) 1 archbishop missing vs. 1 rook + 1 knight missing Nalls knight 30.77 rook 59.43 archbishop 98.22 1 rook + 1 knight / 1 archbishop = 0.9183 Muller knight 35.29 rook 55.88 archbishop 102.94 1 rook + 1 knight / 1 archbishop = 0.8857 __________________________________________ average (Nalls & Muller) 1 rook + 1 knight / 1 archbishop = 0.9020 Conclusion- testable! ______________________ Thus, I will begin playtest #4 very soon.
Although I have stated previously (and still maintain) that - 'The inverse relation that inescapably exists between the quantity and quality of the games comprising a collection has been conclusively proven to me by labor-intensive experience.' http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf See 'worldview and games'- page 40. - I expect few others to share my borderline-fanatical goal of discovering and implementing a single, best or virtually-perfect chess variant. At least, I recognize that many prolific game designers hold the logical viewpoint that the most practical, achievable method to contribute to the chess variant community lies in striking a balance between high quality and high quantity backed with years of sustained effort. Admittedly, I am too selfish to put my name on (or at least, leave my name on) any game creation that does not satisfy my highest, current standards of quality. In other words, I create game(s) for the chess variant community AND me. It is important (to me) not to leave me out of consideration. I wish more game inventors thought and acted likewise. I consider myself a reformed prolificist who became a single-game perfectionist in 2005. By the way, that single game switched on me recently in response to an unexpected, theoretical breakthrough ... Spherical Chess 400 http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots I strongly hope I got it right this time. I respectfully caution all prolificists (whether they approve or disapprove of the term) to be mindful that unless they are successfully creating the very best, original chess variants in every class of games they publish, then definitively they are only contributing to a 'number pollution' of good games (presumably). Furthermore, it is not possible to create a best chess variant in any class without a foundation and range of theory, experience and ingenuity to enable you to correctly see and surpass the limitations of all of the pre-existing, best games within that class. If I can achieve this (i.e., creating a best game within a class) just once, then I will be proud. Obviously ... if any of you prolificists can achieve this 5-10 times, then you have the right to be much more proud than I. Some of you who have 50-100 games (or more) in your catalog are probably confident that you already have achieved this 5-10 times (or more). I hope so yet I remain skeptical that any of us have achieved this even once. I don't think some of you fully understand or respect what we are up against by being creative with combinatorial game theory.
'Overall, the literature of chess variants demonstrates a random scattering of 1000's of the infinite possible, stable [not in every case!] arrangements of gameboards, pieces, rules, etc. Despite the constructive intentions, hard work and abstraction by their various inventors, statistically it is as if the population as a whole which created this class of games did so with little guidance of intelligent design. Virtually all of these games could have instead been randomly generated by a computer program designed to intentionally create chaotic, messy chess variants. This is the fate of all work undertaken without correctly applying the most important game-design principles.' Symmetrical Chess- Description http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf See section 'blueprints for incredibly bad inventions'- page 5. _________________________________________________________ Although I prefer to colloquially express a permutations analogy ['arrangements' is the keyword clue] instead of a number theory analogy, there is an implicit overlapping and agreement of ideas. I am especially convinced of Muller's observation that 'invention' is commonly used in an exaggerated or false manner within chess variant literature. In my opinion, 'discovery' is usually a much more appropriate and factual word although I consider even its usage in some cases to be melodramatic. For a hypothetical example ... 1. Imagine that a person flashes thru all of the 12,000+ opening setups of CRC (discovered by Reinhard Scharnagl) and notes which ones, by quickly applying simple quality criteria, are especially stable. 2. This person eventually completes a short list of, for example, the 24 best (by his/her criteria). 3. This person arrogantly and irrationally imagines himself/herself to be a prolific, genius inventor who has earned fame- not merely a discoverer. 4. This person dishonestly applies for and receives US patents for every one of his/her 24 favorite opening setups of CRC that were not already US patented ... albeit by carefully, intentionally not mentioning CRC at all to the patent examiners. 5. This person takes the fact that he/she holds fraudulently-obtained US patents for most of his/her 24 favorite opening setups of CRC as proof that he/she is indeed a prolific, genius inventor. [Of course, any resemblance to any real person(s) in this fictional story is purely coincidental.] _________________________ Would you agree to classify this person as a prolific, genius inventor? I would not even classify this person as a discoverer. The desire to be accurate would compel me to classify this person instead as an intellectual property thief (only of non US-patented gameworks) and a phoney inventor. After all, Reinhard Scharnagl had already holistically covered the same ground, as a discoverer, that this person falsely, subsequently staked a claim to as his/her own solely. _______________________________ Nonetheless, I reserve the view that 'invention' can occasionally be used appropriately to refer to a small number of highly-unique chess variants. I also think (as Duniho) that Muller fails to give sufficient credit to original game inventors who have somehow managed to create complex chess variants that are balanced, dynamic, stable and playable. After all, the odds against creating chess variants, compliant with every quality criteria (known and unknown), by chance or luck are combinatorically high. Instead, they are rare, valuable examples of intelligent design done correctly. Eight years filled with appr. 250 failed, diligent, attempted-intelligent efforts on my part (until only one recent success, in my tentative opinion) have convinced me that great games are highly unlikely to be invented by chance or luck.
Thank you! As it turns-out, 'interruption of activities on this site' has already become a way of life to all of us who follow this discussion board, anyway. So, Gawd-speed and good luck!
Derek Nalls http://www.myspace.com Hopefully, other chess variant hobbyists who are also MySpace users will likewise feel secure about listing their contact pages here (and putting one another on friends lists to enable convenient communication- public or private) despite the semi-personal, informal nature of MySpace.
I think it would be consistent with editorial policy to delete this thread.
Admittedly, this is off-topic. If the editors choose to delete this post, I graciously accept their decisions without argument. I sent it because I thought it may be of interest to some people here. Clearly, French roulette is not a chess variant. It is not even a game of skill. French roulette the spin-maximizing betting scheme http://www.symmetryperfect.com/roulette/roulette.pdf 27 pages This is a rough, first draft. Also, I have never actually played any variation of roulette because I despise gambling. I am especially interesting in the opinions of mathematical experts such as Muller and Thompson (even though they are sometimes not interested in my opinion on mathematical matters).
Driven by the hunch that Mark Thompson must be correct (a negative outcome game of chance cannot be profitable), I think I have pinpointed my error. I was using a (simple) average profit instead of a weighted average profit. I'll recalculate and announce the results.
Now, I am getting the correct result. With the proper weighted average profit considered (which is much lower than the actual average profit), it requires 1950-1951 successful, consecutive uses (on average) of this betting scheme to double your money while it requires only 1100-1101 uses to reach a 50% risk of busting and losing all of your money. As a double-or-nothing bet, there is a 70.72% chance of ending-up with nothing.
'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.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.