Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
In the preset for this game, castling does not work!
Thanks for reporting this. This is now fixed.
To Kevin Pacey: Your comment that if you used a lone Champion+King it was possible to force mate against a lone King on a "normal" type of Chess board (that is, if the four corner "bolthole" squares were eliminated) sounded wrong to me, so I added that piece to one of the Chess engines I've written and had it compute the endgame database for that piece combination, and sure enough there are only a handful of positions for which a single Champion can force mate, whether on any size of rectangular Chess board or on an Omega Chess board. On the other hand, two Champions can easily force mate either on a rectangular Chess board of any size or on an Omega Chess board. I think you misunderstood Muller's comment - the one I saw says that a WD (or WAD) piece can mate, but doesn't say that this is forced in the typical case.
A word on my qualifications: I am a USCF Expert in standard FIDE Chess as well as the author or co-author of several computer Chess programs including the "Duchess" program that was the runner-up in the World Computer Chess Championships.
I think that using the 50 move rule for this and several other large Chess variants is probably not appropriate. For example, my Chess engine computes the maximum number of moves to mate in this variant for Bishop+Knight vs King to be 69 moves, for Queen+King vs Rook+King to be 72 moves, and for Knight+Wizard vs King to be 85 moves! Perhaps for this and other large Chess variants it should be a 75 or 100 move rule, or possibly only if the game falls into one of these reduced-material mating patterns.
Are you sure about those numbers? I cannot do the Omega Chess board, but my EGT generator for a plain 10x10 board says KBNK maximally takes 47 moves (average 39.4), and Knight + Wizard maximally 48 moves (average 40.1). I can imagine that having the Wizard squares could take 2 or 3 moves extra, but not nearly as much as what you mention. The hard part is usually to get the bare King in the desired corner. For Bishop + Knight it might not take any extra moves, as in the standard mating patterns the Bishop would automatically attack the Wizard square as well.
I agree that 50 moves does not leave much room for errors, and in general it can take longer to make progress in large games.
[Edit] Oh, I now also see your previous comment. And no, Kevin did not misunderstand me; for maximum DTM with a WD on 10x10 I get 52 moves, while 95.7% of the positions with the strong side to move are forced wins (see table below). On the Omega board this is of course no longer true; not even a Rook can force mate there. The WAD probably doesn't fare any better.
$ ./3men10x10 KwK allocate 1010064 at 6d0040 mated mate King captures 129224 mates 16 ( 0.01 sec) in-1 40 64 ( 0.01 sec) in-2 208 248 ( 0.01 sec) in-3 88 916 ( 0.01 sec) in-4 300 624 ( 0.01 sec) in-5 224 1428 ( 0.02 sec) in-6 468 768 ( 0.02 sec) in-7 528 1696 ( 0.02 sec) in-8 468 1728 ( 0.02 sec) in-9 400 1836 ( 0.02 sec) in-10 480 1080 ( 0.03 sec) in-11 396 1328 ( 0.03 sec) in-12 312 1416 ( 0.03 sec) in-13 512 1192 ( 0.03 sec) in-14 304 1656 ( 0.03 sec) in-15 72 812 ( 0.04 sec) in-16 56 304 ( 0.04 sec) in-17 80 280 ( 0.04 sec) in-18 168 392 ( 0.04 sec) in-19 468 712 ( 0.04 sec) in-20 768 1408 ( 0.04 sec) in-21 768 2096 ( 0.04 sec) in-22 708 2152 ( 0.05 sec) in-23 1056 2080 ( 0.05 sec) in-24 908 2812 ( 0.05 sec) in-25 1640 2620 ( 0.05 sec) in-26 1376 4128 ( 0.06 sec) in-27 1516 3720 ( 0.06 sec) in-28 3944 4524 ( 0.06 sec) in-29 4536 10044 ( 0.06 sec) in-30 6588 11060 ( 0.07 sec) in-31 9456 15224 ( 0.07 sec) in-32 15880 20516 ( 0.08 sec) in-33 27248 32184 ( 0.09 sec) in-34 33956 48452 ( 0.10 sec) in-35 45448 56908 ( 0.12 sec) in-36 60972 71044 ( 0.13 sec) in-37 77556 89008 ( 0.15 sec) in-38 88852 100212 ( 0.17 sec) in-39 86540 90180 ( 0.19 sec) in-40 81708 71664 ( 0.21 sec) in-41 57772 46460 ( 0.22 sec) in-42 40900 31352 ( 0.23 sec) in-43 25296 20336 ( 0.24 sec) in-44 19160 15656 ( 0.25 sec) in-45 12944 11152 ( 0.25 sec) in-46 8928 6976 ( 0.25 sec) in-47 5456 4136 ( 0.26 sec) in-48 2520 1968 ( 0.26 sec) in-49 912 696 ( 0.26 sec) in-50 224 200 ( 0.26 sec) in-51 72 56 ( 0.26 sec) in-52 32 16 ( 0.26 sec) in-53 0 0 ( 0.27 sec) won: 928744 ( 95.7%) lost: 731228 ( 75.4%) avg: 37.9 moves
and if you'll allow the humble 8x8, you can test out that endgame:
https://www.chessvariants.com/membergraphics/MSinteractive-diagrams/EGT.html?betza=WAD&name=Champion&img=champion
(I really like this thing; thanks H.G.!)
I noticed that the Champion's Piececlopedia page has an incorrect diagram (due to the new marker code). I'll fix that and add a link to the 8x8 checkmating practice after work today.
And WD on 8x8 can be tried here. It doesn't seem to have much difficulty forcing checkmate against any play, even though it starts in a generally unfavorable position (with the strong side crammed in a corner.) For a piece like WD it could be worse if it starts in the corner opposite from its own King; then there are positions where it is 'dynamically trapped', when it is on the same diagonal as the bare King.
@Bruce:
I converted my 4-men EGT generator to doing the Omega Chess board. (I mapped the board into an 11x12, and then it effectively only needs 122 elements, as neighboring boards can be partly interleaved.)
Oddly enough this confirms the numbers you gave for Bishop+Knight and Wizard+Knight!
What I had not realized is that these end-games are not generally won at all, but are mosty fortress draws: you can only deliver mate in the corner of the Bishop's/Wizard's shade, as you need to cover both the corner and the Wizard square, or the King will simply escape to the latter. And if the bare King takes shelter in the other corner there is no way to smoke him out of the Wizard square there. So you have to go through excessive trouble to prevent the bare King fleeing into that corner, which apparently causes an enormous slowdown. On a normal board it is easy to drive the King along the edge from one corner to the other, so trying to reach whatever corner is not a good defensive strategy there.
As a consequence, only 38.3% of the KBNK positions are won (22.3% lost), and 33.7% of the KWNK positions (17.9% lost). Against 99.8%won / 81% lost on regular 10x10.
Your 3-men generator seems buggy, though; as the checkmating applet here shows, WD is a quite easy win on 8x8.
Back on 2009-02-20 Nuno asked the question:
"What if they were mixed on the other form? Substitute wazir by ferz (so the champion is now colorbound) and the ferz by wazir (so now the wizard is not colorbound)."
Jeremy Gabriel Good has played a few games here with a variety of camel-compounds. Quoting from his Grand Combination Courier preset page:
"Promoted form of the Camel-Ferz is the Caliph or Camel Bishop."
"Promoted form of the Camel Wazir is the Canvasser or Camel Rook."
10 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
For the purpose of trying to invent a 10x8 variant, I thought about reducing this variant to 8 ranks rather than 10 (plus omitting the corner squares with the wizards, optionally). My main worry was that then a charge of the b- or i-pawn by the enemy might prove awkward for developing/castling in relative peace.