Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Gentlemen:

I request a cooling-off period for everyone. 

This is not necessary. It will impose a hardship on a number of people, and will cause problems with the current Potluck Tournament, where carlos carlos and I are playing a game of Falcon in the final round. 

This situation can and should be resolved amicably. Falcon Chess is a fine game, and should be available to the public. For maximum exposure and best sales, it should be available freely at CV also. Baen Books has demonstrated with their free books policy that this is the case; books freely available online only increase hardcopy sales. Go to their website and check. 

So everyone involved has reason to compromise here. As a certain unnamed problem seems to be dying a natural death, do we really want to start another such problem? 

I submit that the proper resolution is to leave Falcon chess both on the CV site and on the freeware that HG Muller has already released. I urge all parties now involved to do absolutely nothing. Nobody's best interests are served by this; everyone is hurt. Please reconsider.

Joe

Well, I am not seeking conflict on this. The engine I wrote has helped me to conclude that the Falcon is a very interesting piece, in a value range that makes it combine very well with orthodox Chess pieces. It would be a a pity if it would go to waste due to personality conflicts.

I just want to point out that I have acted in good faith from the very start, to help creating a situation that is a win/win/win for everyone, and that I don't like to be accused of stealing intellectual property, and even less to get covert threats of lawsuits.

Censorship on what I could say on this site was never a part of the deal.

I must confess my own 'mis-use' of Falcon Chess.

I innocently wrote a Zillions implementation to try this game out. Fortunately(or unfortunately), this was for my own personal use and I never considered distributing it. But I now realize that even this was exceeding my rights with this game.

So I began by deleting this implementation and all references to Falcon Chess from my hard drive, and destroying all handwritten notes. But since this did not guarantee its full eradication, I took a sledgehammer to my computer, burned it, stirred the ashes and burned it again.

I've also made an appointment with my neurologist to have excised those brain cells which continue to store data about this game. This will be followed up by intense adversion therapy, the word 'falcon' should prove sufficient.

Please accept my pitiful apologies. I know that nothing I do will make up for my presumption. I will now go and bang my head against the wall.

If you're looking for pieces that fits well in the Western context, please make use of my new pieces, there are several types of cannons, etc. 
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chessvar.htm
/Mats

Cross purposes. As of 8.November.2008 the only program of Muller I have seen so far is the computer-computer one early August. The fact that I have not viewed newer ones is only called to my attention by Joe Joyce now. So some earlier talk may be at cross purposes.  It means misunderstanding from what basis points were being made. Joyce says freeware is already released, and I expect it is quite good, based on the computer-computer. I ignore comments of shop talk and may have missed something related to Falcon implementation. So, Muller may have expected back in August/September reaction upon earlier release, but I have never seen anything. It does not appear in What's New, so I thought of him as referring to the brief computer-computer. In computer-computer, I was puzzled that there seemed to be Castling only in the latter 100-200 scores, not the early ones. However, that may be incorrect.  As a result, Falcon versus Rook was near equality at the end, but Rook > Falcon in early games. Is it possible some code was being inserted ongoing during trials? This is just recollection and puzzlement, not criticism. But I think the data was gone before I studied it; or maybe I am not looking in the right place where they still exist. //[ I do not see Falcon Preset or engine in Fairy Max? ]   Finally, my comment, over criticism of Falcon articles and theory, mentions ''late-2009,'' even before Joyce's intervention, to put it off indefinitely. Fine, just call in a grey area until 31.December.2010. Don't worry about the Falcon team's reservation over criticism. There is no action for noncommercial exploration 2008-2010 by Muller or Sharnagl, who was present. The original agreement only stands as a practical matter. Hopefully a ''win/win/win'' will be set up through intermediary, like IAGO. Let's see what happens.

For those who are interested, the following is my Zillions coding for 'the piece that shall not be named'.

-----------------------------------------------------------

(define xxxxxx_move
  (
  $1 $2
  (set-flag clear_path 
    (or
      (and empty? (or (empty? $3)(empty? $5)))
      (and (empty? $4) (empty? $5))
    )
  )
  (verify (flag? clear_path))
  $1 (verify not-friend?)
  add
  )
)

(xxxxxx_move n ne s w sw)
(xxxxxx_move n nw s e se)
(xxxxxx_move s se n w nw)
(xxxxxx_move s sw n e ne)
(xxxxxx_move e ne w s sw)
(xxxxxx_move e se w n nw)
(xxxxxx_move w nw e s se)
(xxxxxx_move w sw e n ne)
(xxxxxx_move ne n sw e s)
(xxxxxx_move nw n se w s)
(xxxxxx_move se s nw e n)
(xxxxxx_move sw s ne w n)
(xxxxxx_move ne e sw n w)
(xxxxxx_move nw w se n e)
(xxxxxx_move se e nw s w)
(xxxxxx_move sw w ne s e)



--------------------------------------------------------------

Using this code,  the piece was evaluated at 6529 in the center of an open 10x10 field by the Zillions engine. Compare this to Pawn at 2961, Knight at 9153 and Bison at 14699.

George,

I have never been hostile toward Falcon Chess. My hostility has been toward you personally. Let me make it clear, it is all about you, not your game. You made a very bad first impression on me, and your subsequent behavior has mainly gone to reinforce that first impression. Your claim that you “never have bad will” toward me really comes as a surprise, given that you frequently toss jibes at me. Even the comment I'm responding to includes the jibe that I'm unimaginative. That's a really peculiar comment, given that my Chess variants are more numerous and different from each other than yours are. I don't recall badgering you out of a tournament. I do recall reprimanding you for belligerent conduct in the forums, and perhaps you dropped out of the tournament because that made you feel uncomfortable, but I certainly didn't badger you out of a tournament, and it was never my intention that you drop out of the tournament. My intention was that you shape up. Now, you may not be aware of how belligerent you can be, because your usual style is to toss off jibes in passing rather than to clearly insult people directly. Be that as it may, it is an expression of hostility (possibly covert and hidden from your awareness) and it engenders hostility toward you. So I ask you to catch yourself when you're writing jibes and to delete them before sending your comments.

The incognito piece must surely be valued at least as much as a knight. After all, it can reach 16 squares, provided that the path to them is not blocked. So Zillions misvalues it. It can easily be tweaked. But it is not a bifurcation piece while they need a screen to change direction.
/Mats

But allow me to express my personal evaluation of this piece.

If it is developed early in the game, it has the potential of being trapped and captured. This is most apparent on the 8x10 field. In fact, until there has been a significant reduction of material, it is unable to exercise a range of movement to equate it with the Knight.

But without early development, it hinders castling. And remember the old defense adage, 'Castle early'. And its movement can place it far onto the field. So it will potentially not survive through the mid-game without careful application.

And its endgame application is not much more than a Knight. Though two might checkmate a King, the possibility of this position is quite remote.

And it does not offer a good promotion for the Pawn. Who would not prefer the Queen?

All in all, it appears to be a rather weak piece. So I would accept Zillions evaluation.

To quote David Paulowich, it strikes me as almost as bad an idea as the
original Shatranj Elephant. Here is was referring to the nonleaping Camel in Cardinal Super Chess. Combining with a nonleaping Zebra is like adding a Trebouchet to the Alfil. Both pieces are dreadfully awkward on the small board, but these lame Falcon components do not even have the tactical opening value that normal long leaping pieces have. The Falcon needs a larger board, just as a Camel and Zebra do. Unfortunately, this makes it incompatible with the Pawn and Knight. It's like fitting a round (multipath) piece in a square (riders/leapers) hole. Perhaps you should consider revising Falcon Chess.

It is not that bad. Depending on where exactly you start the Falcons on the back rank, it is possible to develop them laterally. E.g. on a 10x8 board a Falcon can move from i1-h1-g1-f2 or h1-g1-f2-e2/3 to the squares in front of K or Q after you evacuated the B and N from the back rank. This was the solution usually preferred by Fairy-Max in the Falcon Chess demo-match games it played. It is true in general that 'castling early' is in general difficult in 10x8 variants, and that many games went without castling.

Note that a single Falcon does have mating potential against a bare King, and is a close match for a Rook both in opening and end-game.

With a King and this piece versus a bare opposing King, the player would need to back the opponent into a corner, or have other material on the board. Every time that the player maneuvered it, this would leave a path of escape.

I will run this scenario, but I suspect that it's stalemate or perpetual check.

Okay, you can force a mate with this piece against a bare King.

In this scenario it is no different than the Bison.

This also supposes that it survives into the endgame. Or that the player opts for such a promotion. Especially when a Queen or Rook would be more effective.

Another discussion on checkmates can be found on the Bison Comments Page. Starting with a forced mate in six I found by shuffling pieces around on an 8x8 board - ending with H. G. Muller's computer analysis: K + B always force mate on boards up to 14x14, but usually fail on a 16x16 board.

There may be some forced checkmates that involve a Bison leaping over one of the Kings, but I assume that a Falcon can still force checkmate, possibly taking a few moves longer.

I can see the novelty of this piece. One that starts weak and grows stronger as the game progresses.

If the player is willing to nurse it through the opening, protect it through the mid-game, they could reap benefit during the endgame.

I am curious as to endgame scenarios with it versus an opposing Rook or Queen. I'll run a few and post the results.

Against the Queen, it doesn't stand a chance.

Against the Rook, it is able to deter checkmate. Mainly by threatening either the opposing Rook or King if they attempt to work too close together. This doesn't mean that it is as strong as the Rook, only that its dynamics allows the player more forking opportunities which the opposing Rook can be prevented from utilizing simply by avoiding orthogonal positions with its own King. I only ran this scenario to Strength 12, so its not really conclusive. But it appears to be a potential draw condition unless one of the players makes a serious error.

I'll add a Pawn to each side, to see how this will shift the balance of play.

David Paulowich:
| There may be some forced checkmates that involve a Bison leaping 
| over one of the Kings, but I assume that a Falcon can still force
| checkmate, possibly taking a few moves longer.

The patented Falcon is actually 100% equivalent to the Bison in the KBiK end-game, because of its multi-path character. No Falcon move can be blocked on a single square; at least 2 blockers are needed. But the blockers wil then always have to be on adjacent squares, and two Kings a never do that. So KFK can be played aexactly as KBiK.

In end-games with more than 3 pieces this is no longer true, and a Falcon might be weaker than a Bison. In KQKBi, KCKBi and KAKBi this is of no importance, as they are aready lost for the Bison, and can only be more lost for the Falcon. KRKBi is a dead draw, and downgrading the Bison to a Falcon does not change that: KRK is only marginally won, and only by virtue of zugzwang. Any extra piece for the defender spoils the zugzwang, and thus make the K+R attack on K unsuccessful. And a Bison is far too agile to be hunted down by K+R. Even KRKN is almost always draw because K+R cannot get a Knight. The other way around, a Rook can defend quite easily against Bison by cutting off the opponent King from your own.

By simply adding a Pawn to each side with the K+R, the Rook is able to assist its Pawn toward promotion better than the opponent. And thus will tip the balance, whether by obtaining more material or exchange. Or simply capture the opposing Pawn, sacrificing its own and thus return to the previous condition.

Ran this scenario with the Pawns beginning on their starting cells; widely spaced, in adjacent files and in the same file.

Also tried the piece code with double value. It appears to survive a little longer in the game, as the engine appears not willing to exchange it for anything less than Rook.

This forced value can be used to advantage by a human player during the middle game. Causing the AI to be over-protective, and cripple its position development. With Bishop or Knight threats.

If the piece remains at its low value, the human player can also take advantage by encouraging the AI to sacrifice its pieces early in the game. With Bishop or Knight sacrifices.

Maybe it should not be double value, but only increased to just slightly higher than the Bishop or Knight.