[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by DerekNalls
Using the mirror of Embassy Chess as a *.fen, TJChess10x8 runs fine now under Winboard F. Thanks!
Inconclusive Report One type of 1:2 or 2:1 exchanges I have been playtesting using SMIRF (versions MS-174b-O and MS-174c-O) involves a player missing 1 archbishop OR 1 chancellor versus a player missing 1 rook and 1 bishop. Generally, the results were favoring the Muller model in which any 1 supreme piece in CRC (archbishop, chancellor, queen) has a material value significantly higher than any other 2 pieces (except 2 rooks). Embassy Chess (player without 1 archbishop) vs. (player without 1 rook + 1 bishop) 10 minutes per move (player without 1 rook + 1 bishop) wins 2 games (playing white & black) 75% (3/4) probability of correctness (player without 1 chancellor) vs. (player without 1 rook + 1 bishop) 15 minutes per move (player without 1 rook + 1 bishop) wins 2 games (playing white & black) 75% (3/4) probability of correctness Unfortunately, since I used standard versions of SMIRF loaded with Scharnagl CRC material values, the results became tainted due to a game between the (player without 1 chancellor) and the (player without 1 rook + 1 bishop) at 10 minutes per move. The player with the potentially game-winning 3:2 advantage in supreme pieces unnecessarily permitted the exchange of its 1 archbishop for 2 minor power pieces (i.e., 1 bishop + 1 knight). Eventually, a 3-fold repetition draw occurred. Scharnagl: Please raise the material value of your archbishop within your CRC model? My experience has convinced me that it is obviously 1-2 pawns too low. Otherwise, I will be forced to abandon the use of SMIRF in favor of a program (such as Joker80) with more reliable CRC piece values when I return to this unresolved playtesting issue.
Muller & Scharnagl: Please note that I have revised my model again in consideration to recent playtesting results. This affects material values of 'supreme pieces' in both FRC and CRC. CRC material values of pieces http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/values-capa.pdf pawn 10.00 knight 30.77 bishop 37.56 rook 59.43 archbishop 98.22 chancellor 101.48 queen 115.18 FRC material values of pieces http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/values-chess.pdf pawn 10.00 knight 30.00 bishop 32.42 rook 50.88 queen 98.92 For details, please see: universal calculation of piece values revision- July 1, 2008 http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/calc.pdf 65 pages Consequently ... My current CRC model is more similar to the Muller model than any other. My current FRC model is more similar to the Kaufmann model than any other. Unfortunately, a 65-page explanation, even if it is 'elaborate sense', is not conducive to the 'short, convincing argument' you seek.
Conclusive Report (but without any evidence) I began this round of playtesting using SMIRF MS-174b-O which contained a bad checkmate bug. Since I regard it as inconsistent to me to: 1. present saved games unaltered whenever the checkmate bug did not present itself. YET 2. present saved games altered whenever the checkmate bug did present itself. ... I chose to present no saved games at all for the sake of consistency. In fact, I did not save any games at all generated via SMIRF playtests. This puts me in the strange position of playtesting mainly for my own interest since I do not have the right to demand that anyone else take my word for the playtesting results I am reporting. [The latest version of SMIRF recently given to me by Reinhard Scharnagl, MS-174c-O, has never shown me a checkmate bug. Hopefully, it never will.] _____________________________________________________________________ Since I have been convinced thru playtesting recommended by Muller that the archbishop has a material value nearly as great as the chancellor in CRC, the desirability of confirming the order of material values for the 'supreme pieces' (i.e., queen, chancellor, archbishop) used in all reputable CRC models occurred to me. Accordingly, 3 asymmetrical playtests were devised. These are 1:1 exchanges involving a player missing 1 given supreme piece versus a player missing 1 different supreme piece. Generally, the results were normal as expected. Embassy Chess (player without 1 archbishop) vs. (player without 1 chancellor) 10 minutes per move (player without 1 archbishop) wins 2 games (playing white & black) 75% (3/4) probability of correctness (player without 1 chancellor) vs. (player without 1 queen) 10 minutes per move (player without 1 chancellor) wins 2 games (playing white & black) 75% (3/4) probability of correctness (player without 1 archbishop) vs. (player without 1 queen) 10 minutes per move (player without 1 archbishop) wins 2 games (playing white & black) 75% (3/4) probability of correctness order of material values of CRC pieces (from highest to lowest) 1. queen 2. chancellor 3. archbishop By transitive logic, the third playtest could have been considered totally unnecessary. Nonetheless, I conducted it as a double-check to the consistency of the results from the first and second playtests. Although a 75% (3/4) probability per test could be improved upon greatly with a couple-few more games, I am already satisfied that the results are correct and that something unexpected is not the reality. So, I will not be playtesting this issue further. There are more interesting and pressing mysteries to me awaiting tests.
This is a new feature request: I have 2 versions of SMIRF (version 0 [standard] and version 2) I would like to playtest against one another using SMIRF-o-glot and Winboard F. Currently, it is impossible. 1. SMIRF-o-glot only executes the standard name of the SMIRF program. 2. SMIRF-o-glot requires the SMIRF program to be with it in the same directory to work. 3. Winboard F requires SMIRF-o-glot to be with it in the same directory to work. 4. Two seperate installations of Winboard F (having two different versions of SMIRF) cannot communicate to work in coordination. Manually playtesting 2 versions of SMIRF against one another (without using Winboard F and SMIRF-o-glot) would probably take 2-3 times as long. So, any solution that is not too labor-intensive for you, the programmer, would be greatly appreciated.
'I think that you could even put a single version of Smirfoglot in the WinBoard directory, as long as you tell it with the /fd argument where to look for the engine DLL if the Smirf directory is a subdirectory of the WinBoard directory.' Yes, the shortened argument works fine. Consider it tested. Thank you for the tech support.
Hecker: I am keenly interested to know what material values this strong program uses for CRC pieces.
World Chessboxing Organization http://site.wcbo.org/content/index_en.html
This must be changed to 'Unmentionable Chess Live'!
I appreciate the 3 versions of SMIRF loaded with different CRC material values that you sent me for testing purposes. I realize compiling them was not a productive use of your time toward developing Octopus or creating future versions of SMIRF. So, I sincerely hate to complain. Internal Playtesting- Scharnagl http://www.symmetryperfect.com/pass Push the 'download now' button. I played one game of Embassy Chess (mirror) at 40 minutes per move. The white player was version 0 (standard) and the black player was version 2 (highest archbishop value). The black player won. However, the victory was not attributable to the white player valuing its archbishop too low in an exchange. Instead, it was attributable to the white player valuing its queen too low in an exchange. White traded its 1 queen for 1 knight + 1 rook belonging to black. This gave black a 3:2 advantage in supreme pieces which, over the course of the game, was reduced to a 1:0 advantage in supreme pieces which gave black the ability to out-position white in the endgame, gain material and win. The game was not even close or long ... ending in 53 moves. I have seen this happen many times before. Of course, with version 0 and version 2 having identical material values for the queen, rook and knight, it could have just an likely 'thrown the game away' to the other player. That is the reason I cannot continue playtesting with what you provided to me. Under the Nalls model (for example), there are 3 supreme piece(s) enhancements: the non color-bound enhancement, the non color-changed enhancement and the compound enhancement. In CRC, they total a 43.75% bonus for the archbishop above the material value of its components (the bishop and the knight), a 12.50% bonus for the chancellor above the material value of its components (the rook and the knight) and a 18.75% bonus for the queen above the material value of its components (the rook and the bishop). The entire purpose of the supreme piece(s) enhancements is to provide a measurably appropriate deterrent to trading any supreme pieces too lightly to your opponent thereby ending-up with a potentially game-losing disadvantage in the ratio of supreme pieces. The Muller model is similar in this respect. If I had to choose only ONE foundation, experimental or theoretical, for my model, then I would choose experimental without apprehension. Of course, I am allowed to use both. So, I do because I remain hopeful that eventually, thru relentless effort, my theory will attain a worthwhile condition (that has previously eluded it) whereby the theoretical and experimental foundations will become mutually reinforcing. I would characterize my position as regarding both the experimental and theoretical foundations as important (although I definitely consider the experimental foundation primary). I would characterize Muller's position as being that the experimental foundation is everything that matters and the theoretical foundation is just an unneeded crude, inaccurate approximation to experimental numbers decorated with arbitrary words and concepts. Maybe so? I would characterize Scharnagl's position as being that the theoretical foundation is supremely important as it must dictate and predict the optimum experimental numbers. [I agree that a great theory should be expected to do so.] Furthermore, the theory must be elegantly simple and intuitively accessible. [I consider this expectation unrealistic and impossible. Generally, the optimum material values for chess variants are too complex in their estimation-calculation to be reducible to simple formulae without sacrificing accuracy to an unacceptable extent.] Scharnagl: Please reconsider revising your CRC model even if doing so unavoidably renders your theory somewhat more complicated in its concepts and formulae? The playing strength of SMIRF (standard version) can probably be improved significantly by taking such steps.
Chessboxing Hits It Big http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1821639,00.html?cnn=yes [Apparently, this forum chokes-up on links whenever it hits a comma.]
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.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.