Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Ok, I'll of course accept those invitations Carlos, but I think we can each use whatever set we want by the power of customization, I'm not sure!

OK, thanks. I had not thought of that. I'm going to check it out. Either way we can play 4 games at a time!

@ Carlos Cetina,

Now I understand what's going on. You don't need to create a preset you just need to customize mine. Just press the customize button in the menu. So we can both use whichever figureenees we see fit. Now how do we switch all games to my presets, and then you customize how you like them. They should always be remebered like the Cetina style customization :), shouldn't them?

Carlos, Thanks so much for taking an interest in my games!

@ Fergus Duniho,

Hey Fergus,

Have you had time to take a look on the questions I've put on this post regarding game courier presets? I'm sure you are the most qualified to answer them. I'm a newbie with big targets in mind, ..., I know baby steps, ..., but the matter of fact is for the casual user, not for us aficionados, there have to be many facilities, and I kind of promised many of my friends that they can play my games. Please find the time to address the concerns I've raised regarding preset programming of my two apothecary games.

Bye Fergus,

Best wishes,

Aurelian

I foresee three main diffculties for me in implementing Game Courier Presets for Apothecary Chess 1 and Apothecary Chess 2.

1.The move enforecement for the griffin and aanca.

The one-step move can be handled by checkleap, and the two-step move can be handled by checktwostep, as the Horse move in Xiangqi is. Moving further could be trickier. Using a separate checkapath function for each possible move longer than two spaces should work, but it would be fairly brute force.

The description for logride says that it can be used for turning riders, such as the griffin and aanca, and it describes how. But to use it, you should use logical directions, and for consistency's sake, you should define all piece movement in terms of logical directions. It looks like I do not have a tutorial on using logical directions, but they are essentially what Zillions-of-Games normally uses.

A third option is to wait for me to write a new function that will better handle turning riders for mathematical directions.

Also the move enforcement for pieces that have just move abilities like the advanced omega chess knight. How do I differentiate between just moves and regular moves?

This is a divergent piece. Look at code for the Pawn for an example of handling a divergent piece. Or look at the code for Cannon moves in Xiangqi.

2.The joker movement. If the regular joker movements shouldn't prove a big trouble as I saw there is an last piece moved variable that I can build from (it seems a bit tedious though),

Yes, for the Joker, keep track of the last piece moved by the previous player, and use its function to check whether the Joker's move was legal.

the trouble is with the insertion of the joker on the regular board as it should move from the pocket square (p2 respectively p9 in the diagram) to a just vacated spot by a friendly piece that is not a pawn or a bruhaha square piece and has not previously moved by turn 12 for white and 18 for black. The worst thing is that two pieces get moved in one turn.

Game Courier can handle double moves, but when they aren't a regular part of the game, it is better to ask a question whenever you move a non-Pawn piece before 12 or 18 moves are up and while the Joker space is still occupied. If the player answers yes, then the Joker move should be added to the move without the player having to make that move explicitly. The ask command can be used for this.

3.The endgame conditions which are suficiently different. Actually that should not be a big trouble as the threefold repetition and the 100 moves (actually 50 but that's just an constant) rule are implemented and counting some points should be fairly easy.

I don't know why you would want to add such complicated endgame conditions, but it is essentially math.

I also noticed a misuse of terminology. You called a Rook an average piece instead of a major piece. The definition of a major piece is one that can checkmate a lone King with assistance only from one's own King. That is, it is enough material to win the game when the only other pieces on the board are Kings. By that definition, the Rook is a major piece. If you want to distinguish the Rook from some more powerful pieces, you should use a different term than major for them.

Fergus,

Thanks for the informations.

Regarding your concern about the rook I've said that it's a average piece as strength goes. That is used in the pawn promotion rules. But maybe instead of major, average, minor I could use strong, medium, weak. The first way sound more professional to me though.

About the weird endgame conditions is that I want to reward someone who forces a stalemate, or at least finishes with non neglijible extra material. For example in apothecary chess 2 an king+zebra+camel vs king is an advantage as I think we should reward a bit a player who collected 2 extra minor pieces, otherwise it would be a draw. Anyway if this bothers one much, he/she should find consolation in the fact that is a rare occurance. I doubt the advantage/disadvantage situation will occur often, but anyway it should be taken care of.

Thanks for you time Fergus,

Aurelian

Hello Carlos,

I tried to customize the appearance on my preset but I'm yet to succeed. It should not be difficult,  though. The idea is that I like my pretty pictures and you like your pretty pictures which is fine. We shouldn't build two of each apothecaries for that, 1 of each is fine.

For now I'm cut in a hiring process in my real life so I am a little busy. After things settle I'll work with the rule enforcements and friendliness of the interface. Then I'll try to make things prettier as things are settled in a functional way. I'm really sorry if you feel an inconvenience moving the animal head griffin picture, but I promise is temporary and eventually I'll take care of everything. For now let's do with what we have. I'll of course play the second round of game with your pictures.  Here I am concerned that my main apothecary 1 & 2 presets won't remember the games played with your apothecary 1 & 2 presets. I don't know how to merge the two databases of only one game, once they finish. I hope we'll find a solution.

Best wishes,

Aurelian

Aurelian:

Don't worry about to merge databases because Game Courier already is doing it since it records games based on its primary names; our presets differ only in its settings names, so there is no problem.

There is no way to customize your presets [using the Customize button] in such a manner that the result be the presets proposed by me, but this is not a big problem: when you post your presets, you could create at the corresponding user submission page a link towards "my" presets, leaving the players the choice of which one to use. 

The icons that are most difficult for me to visualize how theirs respective pieces should be moved are the Champion and the Wizard, but I have found another solution: I will make a clone of each of the two games that are in progress in which we are using your presets, in such a way that I will do my analysis on the clones [which will use "my" presets] and, once I have decided what move I am going to do, I will replicate it in the matrix game. That's all... simple like "good morning!"

Thank you for attending my suggestions.

 

Regarding your concern about the rook I've said that it's a average piece as strength goes. That is used in the pawn promotion rules. But maybe instead of major, average, minor I could use strong, medium, weak. The first way sound more professional to me though.

The use of technical terms may sound more professional to those who don't know what they mean, but their misuse sounds more amateurish to those who actually do know what they mean. So, it is important to use such terms accurately.

About the weird endgame conditions is that I want to reward someone who forces a stalemate, or at least finishes with non neglijible extra material. For example in apothecary chess 2 an king+zebra+camel vs king is an advantage as I think we should reward a bit a player who collected 2 extra minor pieces, otherwise it would be a draw.

I would recommend dropping the point counting and the advantages and disadvantages. The goal of the game should always be checkmate, not in racking up consolation prizes when you can't meet that goal. The value of a piece should be determined only by the role it can play in helping to checkmate the opponent. But a point counting system that gives an advantage to a player with more pieces in a draw could throw off the calculations of piece value. And if the game ends in a draw despite one player having more pieces, that's evidence that he doesn't know how to use them well, which doesn't seem to merit a reward. In general, counting points adds a distraction that shouldn't be part of the game.

Anyway if this bothers one much, he/she should find consolation in the fact that is a rare occurance. I doubt the advantage/disadvantage situation will occur often, but anyway it should be taken care of.

I come at games from a holistic perspective in which overcomplicated rules that add little value to the game should be shed no matter how rare their application is.

Fergus,

I see your point about the rook not being named a major piece, I will revision the article after I finish the preset and change the terminology.  Moreover by definition of being able to checkmate solely with the help of the king the champion is a major piece in it's game and the aanca is not. Although the aanca is a much stronger piece in many game situations.

If proven a bad idea I admit that the advantage disadvantage system should be scraped despite being rare in it's application, and I had further criticism (initially the 100 moves rule was 150 for example) on this system.

Vickalan's idea was to use to point system only in the 100 moves (at the time 150) rule, as in threefold repetition the stronger side should get out and try to prove it's advantage. I think here if a player lost 2-3 pieces and then sneaked the queen and managed a perpetual doesn't deserve a draw. In the 100 rules move think at an endgame king+elephant+elephant+zebra+camel vs king+rook. It was probably a thrilling game and it ends an a draw after 100 moves. The superior side should get a small advantage in my opinion.

I don't see a problem that the goal is not always to checkmate (shogi has a similar points counting rule but it's only for win/draw). Checkmate is the main goal anyway. I guess as an engineer I am more comfortable with a more gradual measurement of disparity between players. I am also afraid of a draw death (even though for a larger that orthodox game that's unlikely as Greg Strong pointed out a few days ago). I probably take it to far but if this game becomes played (I sort of doubt it) players become more closely matched and more draws may occur. So there is merit in my view for a gradualization of the outcome closer to a draw. I'm sorry if a exaggerate a bit with that I am thinking it the whole way through as I strive to be a perfectionist. I honestly doubt my 2 games will become such success but an inventor  should take care of possible long term problems.

Anyway nobody implies we should agree on all game rules. I think unless challenged with very hard counter-arguments the advantage/disadvantage possible outcome stays. It's my game in the end, and  part of this is, admittedly, my thrill of applying my own idea. On the flip side I've said I'll ask for assistance in order to improve on (Grand Chess+Omega Chess)/2 , so if the endgame conditions are such a bad idea I'm screwed. Oh, my... in what have I got myself into... :).

Here are some functions for Aanca and Griffin movement. These use mathematical coordinates instead of logical ones, and they don't make use of any new functions. There is a bit of redundancy in them, because the same value needs to used twice, and it was easier to calculate it twice than it was to make it more compact. These will also need corresponding functions for calculating the spaces legal moves for these pieces should be checked on. These should be a bit easier to do, and I will leave it as an exercise for whoever programs these games.

def aanca-move checkride
  where #0
    * > abs - file #1 file #0 abs - rank #1 rank #0 sign - file #1 file #0
    * < abs - file #1 file #0 abs - rank #1 rank #0 sign - rank #1 rank #0
  #1 1 1
  and empty where #0 
    * > abs - file #1 file #0 abs - rank #1 rank #0 sign - file #1 file #0
    * < abs - file #1 file #0 abs - rank #1 rank #0 sign - rank #1 rank #0
  and not checkride #0 #1 1 1
  and not checkride #0 #1 1 0
  or checkleap #0 #1 1 0;

def griffin-move checkride
  where #0
    sign - file #1 file #0
    sign - rank #1 rank #0
  #1 1 0
  and empty where #0
    sign - file #1 file #0
    sign - rank #1 rank #0
  and not checkride #0 #1 1 1
  and not checkride #0 #1 1 0
  or checkleap #0 #1 1 1;

Thanks, Fergus!

I have created two new piece sets for Game Courier, "Apothecary Chess: Standard" and "Apothecary Chess: Symbolic" and have added them both to a new set group.  This means that when you create new presets using either of these sets, each player will be able to choose whether to use Aurelian's thematic pieces or Carlos's symbolic pieces.  Each player can even see a different set during the same game.

Also, please note that when using the Alfaerie: Many piece set as the current preset for Apothecary do, you should check box for 'Exclude Pieces not in Setup', otherwise, every time the page loads, it loads hundreds of pictures.

Very good, Greg, thanks. What is the URL of said piece sets?

They don't have URLs, you just select them from the piece set list when editing a preset.  Pick the Apothecary Chess set group and then the two new piece sets will show up on the piece set drop-down.

OK, ready, I have just edited 2 new presets using the symbolic piece set.

These are theirs links:

Apothecary Chess 1

Apothecary Chess 2

The old ones using the "alfaeri many" set are these:

Apothecary Chess 1

Apothecary Chess 2

Thanks again, Greg. By the way, would you like to play a game of AC1 with me?

Greg and Carlos,

Thanks for your help! I have a new job and I am caught now in new  things there. Also I moved to another city so my regular life it's all havoc now. But tonight I'm restarting my apothecary presets programming endeavors. So thanks and see you soon and updated.

Sure, Carlos, sounds good.  I created an invitation.

OK... Great!

Enjoy your game guys!

@Carlos Cetina &@ Greg Strog

Is there a way to watch from time to time your game, or is not public?

It is very rare that anyone here at GC wants to play in private mode. All games in progress are public and you can access any of them from the main page: Game Courier Games Logs.

By the way, one question and one suggestion:

What happens if players forget to drop the Joker within the established period? Is there any kind of penalty?

At your presets you should check the "Exclude Pieces not in Setup" box, since [as Greg said] "otherwise, every time the page loads, it loads hundreds of pictures". Don't forget to SAVE the action immediately.

I didn't even notice the limit on droping the Joker.  These games have way, way too many rules, and many of them seem totally arbitrary.

If the player forgets to place his fool he then forfeits the possibility. The problem with the loading has been taken care of in the proper save, it's just that i have not made public that one!