V. Reinhart wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2017 03:35 PM UTC:
Oh that's cool!
I noticed in the notes you said you only played one game. Can you make the engines play multiple times (like 50 games)? If you can play a game cpu vs. cpu why not a bigger study?
Also, if you're moving around pawns to balance the game, have you thought about adding two pawns to each side? For example, you give one side pawns in weak positions (a and h?) and the other side strong (c and f?). This MIGHT let the setup be symmetrical (althought that doesn't really have a benefit except for aesthetics).
I think it's cool that you are doing experimentation to improve the game. I'm not sure how much fine-tuning is possible. You might be able to get it so that it is so balance that white's first move advantage is gone. (that means one side will always get the knightwa.
Unfortunatelly for me, I don't think there are any engines that play chess on an infinite board. So I can't test "Chess on an Infinite Plane" with an engine. But my games with three real people are going well (I think I'm winning in won, near tie in another, and losing one).
I am starting to study a new version. It might have a few more pieces, but in certain situations TWO pieces can be moved in one turn. For example, moving two pawns in one move, moving two bishops together when they are adjacent to each other, or moving two pieces if they are still in their original positions but engaged in different localized battles. My goal is to help the opening game move faster, and add new dynamics.
When playing by correspondence (1 move per day), I think a 50-100 move game is OK, but if the game last more than 200 moves that might be getting too long.
Oh that's cool!
I noticed in the notes you said you only played one game. Can you make the engines play multiple times (like 50 games)? If you can play a game cpu vs. cpu why not a bigger study?
Also, if you're moving around pawns to balance the game, have you thought about adding two pawns to each side? For example, you give one side pawns in weak positions (a and h?) and the other side strong (c and f?). This MIGHT let the setup be symmetrical (althought that doesn't really have a benefit except for aesthetics).
I think it's cool that you are doing experimentation to improve the game. I'm not sure how much fine-tuning is possible. You might be able to get it so that it is so balance that white's first move advantage is gone. (that means one side will always get the knightwa.
Unfortunatelly for me, I don't think there are any engines that play chess on an infinite board. So I can't test "Chess on an Infinite Plane" with an engine. But my games with three real people are going well (I think I'm winning in won, near tie in another, and losing one).
I am starting to study a new version. It might have a few more pieces, but in certain situations TWO pieces can be moved in one turn. For example, moving two pawns in one move, moving two bishops together when they are adjacent to each other, or moving two pieces if they are still in their original positions but engaged in different localized battles. My goal is to help the opening game move faster, and add new dynamics.
When playing by correspondence (1 move per day), I think a 50-100 move game is OK, but if the game last more than 200 moves that might be getting too long.
Suggestions by anyone are welcome!:)