Talk:Embassy Chess/Archive 1

This setup seems lopsided

Why are all of the new pieces to the right of the white king in this game (or left of the black king)? There is far too much firepower from the f-j files. Also, it makes castling to the short side more like a queenside castle rather than a kingside castle. So, to me, it looks like the colors are reversed. You castle "kingside" to the left in regular chess when you have the black pieces. Castling to the right looks funny in Embassy. ChessHistorian

Well, the entire setup is reversed from the standard where the king is to the east of its escort in the two central files. No big deal- just transpose it if you prefer (which does not change the function of the game at all).

Do you already realize that this CRC position is very closely related to that of Gothic Chess? Yes, the mirror or east-west transposition of Embassy Chess is identical to Gothic Chess with only one exception- the positions of the queen and the archbishop are switched. So, does your criticism that Embassy Chess has a power imbalance to one side also apply to Gothic Chess? --InfoCheck

Gothic Chess has the King in the center of the board with the Chancellor on 1 side and the Archbishop on the other. This is a very important difference. The piece distribution is smooth. There is 1 new pieces to the left of the king, 1 new piece to the right of the king, and the other chess material is where it belongs. In Embassy, having the east-west mirror you mentioned makes a big difference also. The game is played "upside down", as the east-west mirror is reversing the color of your pieces. Clearly in chess you remember this is the case. Black is the east-west mirror of white. So, Embassy Chess has white playing as black on the queenside, and the lopsided distribution on the kingside. Why would you put both new pieces on just one side of the board? ChessHistorian 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Embassy Chess setup is derived from that of Grand Chess. Christian Freeling's philosophy is that the Marshal (Chancellor, Rook+Knight) is the strongest piece of the game, so it's by the King's side. Also, you might notice that the two bishop-pieces are on opposite colors, AND the two knight-pieces on different colors. The King and Queen are on the e and d files, respectively, as in normal Chess. The fact that Castling is reversed was irrelevant to Freeling, because there is no castling in Grand Chess.

Incidentally, I removed the links to Gothic Chess and Gothic Chess Live. they're totally irrelevant to the entry. A link to Grand Chess is of relevance, though. --Sibahi 13:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a link to Embassy Chess on the Gothic Chess page then? By the way, if you change the position of the Chancellor and the King from Gothic Chess, you get Embassy Chess. I looked at Grand Chess and so no obvious relationship. The board sizes are not even the same. Wouldn't it be much more likely that Embassy just moved the two Gothic Chess pieces rather than completely restruture something such as Grand Chess? ChessHistorian 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, switching the positions of the king and chancellor is an easier, more direct explanation of the difference between Embassy Chess and Gothic Chess.

I do not recall the reference but I read that Kevin Hill, its discoverer, although even that word (much less, inventor) may be too melodramatic, stated that the opening setup for Embassy Chess was borrowed from Grand chess- just move in the rooks one space and cut-down the 10H x 10W board to 8H x 10W. --InfoCheck

OK this makes more sense. P.S. Ed Trice was an inventor long before Gothic Chess came around. He has a Galium Arsenide computer (no silicon!) that is about 80 times faster than anything you can buy today. The only problem is that it will melt a hole in your desk if you leave it on for more than 15 minutes straight.

GothicEnthusiast 04:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The order of the Major pieces in Embassy Chess is the same as Grand Chess, hence the similarity. The fact that Gothic Chess is not related to Embassy Chess is merely that they were independently developed. --Sibahi 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Embassy was invented 7 days after I took Gothic Chess off of BrainKing.com, and 7600 days after Grand Chess was invented. Coincidence? The locations of the two pieces were exchanged, and that is all. Would you care to explain why the Rooks of Grand Chess are on different ranks than Embassy? Grand Chess has no castling, Embassy and Gothic both do. Everything else you mention are semantics. I showed Gothic Chess to an 11-year old student this week. Then I showed him Embassy Chess. He said: "They're almost the same exact thing!"

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

GothicChessInventor 04:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Embassy and Gothic are not similar???

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

Gothic Chess, starting position

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

Embassy Chess, starting position

Feel free to explain, King Reza. ChessHistorian 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

About the starting position

Embassy Chess gets its starting position from the 1984 game Grand chess. See below for comparison.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
10											10
9											9
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

Grand Chess. Initial position. The marshall and the cardinal are at right of the king.

Just to clarify 22:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Chess Live ratings

Sibahi- You seem to have a reason to believe that the GCL ratings for the SMIRF & ChessV programs are unreliable. Please explain? I will cooperate with you if I think you might be correct. --InfoCheck

Not that they're unreliable, but they are irrelevant to Embassy Chess. If they are Embassy ratings I would be totally fine with it. I think they belong to the programs' pages and to the Gothic chess page, but not to this page. The games are different, even if slightly, so a program that supports one doesn't necessarily support the other. All the best. --Sibahi 11:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think your scheme of classification is better. I apologize for contradicting your edits in the past. I have since made a few edits consistent with your wishes. --InfoCheck

Original research

The section Initial position properties in this article contains original research by Derek Nalls, not published anywhere and not verified by peer-review. I propose to remove this section according to "no original research" policy of Wikipedia. Andreas Kaufmann 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Point accepted. The reference within the main body of the article was removed as you wish. --InfoCheck —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

The selection criteria that is listed in the Initial position properties section was obviously created ex post facto to include that other variant that was recently deleted from Wikipedia. If we add one more important criteria, that being simply requiring Rooks and Knights to be in their relative offsets as they would appear on the 8x8 board, then that other variant no longer needs to be linked from this page. I think we all can agree that Embassy looks a lot different than that other variant that was deleted.

GothicChessInventor 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the inclusion of "the other variant" (which you go to ridiculous lengths to avoid calling by its correct name Opti Chess) was not contrived by the previous list of criteria, I also like Embassy Chess a little better for the additional reason you cited. So be it.

By the way, I cannot help noticing that the opening setup for Embassy Chess satisfies a much longer list of desirable criteria for stability than the opening setup for Gothic Chess. Don't you think that is logically, strongly indicative or compelling of the responsible conclusion that Embassy Chess is a better game than Gothic Chess? Besides, Embassy Chess is free! Isn't that just great?

--InfoCheck —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:15, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Show us this "much longer list", DerekTheDeleted. Number them so they can be discussed in an orderly fashion.

GothicChessInventor 09:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that you had no idea what "lists of criteria" I am referring to. Anyway ... Gothic Chess has a bulletted list of three criteria in the untitled intro section. Embassy Chess has a bulletted list of nine criteria in the "initial position properties" section. --InfoCheck —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:43, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Repeatedly Kicking-Out Two Relevant Links

This brief explanation should suffice:

1. select CRC analysis tool Position III-A-2 is the mirror of Embassy Chess. It is analyzed in detail based upon the criteria properly listed within the article.

2. CRC | material piece values This is a calculation of material piece values for all Capablanca Random Chess variants including Embassy Chess. Other references of this nature by different theorists can be added (including the one by Ed Trice) without interference by this editor.

Now that you know ... If you continue to remove these links, then you will be undeniable guilty of vandalism. You should have investigated these links before irresponsibly removing them.

--InfoCheck —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:54, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Anybody can create a PDF file, claim whatever they want to claim in it, put it on their own website, then say "Look here, this is my research." I showed your pdf files to 5 different well known artificial intelligence researchers. They all used one word in common to describe it: ridiculous. That's why you can't get it published anywhere.

GothicChessInventor 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Derek Nalls asked me to inform you that "he has never tried to get any of his writings about chess variants published in any journal because the specialties of quality chess variant design and analysis has not yet achieved hardly any scientific standards or basis". His assessment is (paraphrased) that it is presently practiced more as an art than as a science by most and that the value-judgments foundational to any definition of quality vary greatly and contentiously between experts.

2. As to not allow you to keep me distracted by your Hell raising ... You have been notified of the relevance of the two external links. You will be held accountable for any further irresponsible, editorial actions here. The fact that these two works have not been peer-reviewed and published in a journal is, by far, insufficient for exclusion. In the new, fast-evolving area of chess variants, Wikipedia is chock full of external links that simply reference the ideas of individuals involved and experienced with chess variants. I remind you that the Gothic Chess page is also chock full of external links that have not been published in any journal. Would you also like to see all of them removed from the Gothic Chess page? If so, do it yourself since I consider such edits destructive to needed, interesting sources of information. Consistent with my position, I will do everything I can to assure that relevant external links remain on their pages.

--InfoCheck —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:30, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Derek Nalls told you? Then you are talking to yourself again.

Well you can tell Derek Nalls to read this:

http://www.gothicchess.com/nalls.html

"...analysis has not yet achieved hardly any scientific standards..."

Then what about

The Modern Chess Instructor, by Wilhelm Steinitz, Chapter VII, Relative Value of Pieces and Principles of Play (1889-1895)

The Chess-Player's Handbook , by Howard Staunton (1870)

Studies of Chess, by Andre Danican Philidor (1817)

Handbuch des Schachspiels, by Paul Rudolf von Bilguer (1843)

The comment made by Derek Nalls, and YOU, are false. You both suffer from the delusion that you can make statements surrounded by flowery text, and somehow that makes it all true.

GothicChessInventor 20:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing original research

In diff, I have removed a section from the article that violates the Wikipedia pilar WP:NOR. While I feel this section does have merit, it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. Samboy 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In the future, do not make radical, destructive edits (as you just did) without first gaining consensus (as if responsible editors are supposed to do so even with consensus). You unnecessarily gutted the article when, from your point of view, the objectionable element could have easily been pinpointed and surgically removed as merely a portion of a sentence about "Embassy Chess being unique amongst 12,118 CRC positions".

FYI- It is provably true that Embassy Chess is the only CRC position that meets all 9 listed criteria. Note that "original research" is not even needed or referenced within the body of the article. Just waste a tremendous amount of time unsuccessfully trying to find another CRC position that meets all 9 listed criteria and you will learn by elimination that it must be true. Furthermore, don't kick-out abstract facts based responsibly upon simple, proven facts as being "original research" when they are not. For example, abstract arithmetic is also factual as simple arithmetic that it is based upon.

Finally, it has not escaped my attention that you are admittedly the discoverer of Schoolbook Chess, notably another CRC variant listed within the Capablanca chess article that does not meet some of the 9 listed criteria. If you repeatedly vandalize this article out of jealousy and/or conflict of interest, then your reputation here will suffer accordingly.

--BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 22:21, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be removed as an original research. This is an excerpt from highly disputable Derek Nalls' work on 10x8 variant design. Andreas Kaufmann 06:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ben Willard", Welcome to the Wikipedia! Are we going to have to do a WP:RFCU? Samboy 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The "initial position properties" section that you two have derisively referred to as the "original research of Derek Nalls" section was actually patterned closely after the list of criteria in the Gothic Chess article which predated the existence of the Embassy Chess article. Accordingly, the same "original research" notice has just been placed onto the Gothic Chess article to insure fairness. Remove both notices or remove neither notice but do not prejudicially remove only one. --BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 19:26, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I have especially the problem with the following criteria:

• All 3 pawns vertical to the composite pieces (i.e., the queen, chancellor, archbishop) are defended at least twice.
• Both pawns diagonal to the king are defended at least twice.
• The pawn vertical to the king is defended at least thrice.
• The queen and archbishop must be on opposite-colored spaces.
• The chancellor and archbishop must be on opposite-colored spaces.

They are directly taken from mentioned Derek's work, who measures the quality of chess variant by these criteria. I don't agree with these points and believe they have nothing to do with quality of 8x10 chess variant. Andreas Kaufmann 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The mere identity of the person (DN) responsible for first listing these visually-evident facts about the features of this game should hardly be sufficient cause to get anyone upset.

I don't agree with these points and believe they have nothing to do with quality of 8x10 chess variant.

What you believe is fine! In its present form, the text of this article does not make ANY connection or claim between the 9 listed criteria and quality. It only lists all of the 9 criteria. It is left to the reader to decide if any or all of these unique features characteristic of the game are desirable or undesirable. This meets encyclopediac standards. Some explanation of what distinguishes it from other Capablanca chess variants is needed and appropriate, anyway. Therefore, no "original research" notice should be on this article or the Gothic Chess article. Please remove them BOTH immediately and keep them BOTH off with my agreement and support?

--BenWillard

This list doesn't make any sense for me. Just imagine we would we add to chess article the following:

• king and queen must be on opposite-colored spaces.
• both bishops must be on opposite-colored spaces.
• both knights must be on opposite-colored spaces.
• both rooks must be on opposite-colored spaces.

Andreas Kaufmann 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not seriously recommend adding any of your hypothetical additions to the Chess article that you listed ... any more than you do. Besides, what other FRC positions are named and popular?

I (correctly) anticipated that the usage of the words "must be" within some sentences was too forceful and already changed it to "are". So, if we correspondingly changed your 4 statements about Chess to:

• the king and the queen are on opposite-colored spaces.
• both bishops are on opposite-colored spaces.
• both knights are on opposite-colored spaces.
• both rooks are on opposite-colored spaces.

Then all 4 statements are literally true for Chess. However, in the case of Chess, these true statements are so obvious they are boring as well as unnecessary since there are no other FRC positions that Chess needs to be carefully distinguished from.

--BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 22:23, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sam and Andreas. I also support removing this section from the article. As mentioned below, it doesn't belong here. --Sibahi 19:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

"BenWillard"'s contributions are a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Basically, he is editing against consensus and WP:OWN. Basically:

• A section of the page contains original research, against WP:NOR

• Two editors (Myself and Andreas) agree that this section is original research.

• Despite this, "BenWillard" adds the section to the article (or unmarks it as "original research") again and again: [1] [2] [3]

Also, BenWillard's editing history is very suspect and smells of a sockpuppet.

Another point: The related claims on Gothic Chess are not original research because the Gothic Chess webpage and inventor tote the game's pawn protection. If the Embassy Chess inventor talked about these pawn protection features, they would belong here. If a reputable source published them, they would belong here. They belonged on the since-deleted (OK, merged) Optimized Chess page, since the Optimized Chess inventor talked about the pawn protection. But they do not belong here, because:

• The Embassy Chess inventor has not talked about the pawn protection of the pieces

• The stuff about Embassy Chess' pawn protection has not been published in a reliable source.

So, again, the section is original research and does not belong here. Samboy 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for my stance have already been well-explained to all three conflict-of-interest editors, Samboy discoverer of Schoolbook Chess, Andreas Kaufmann zealous player of Gothic Chess and Sibahi inventor of Energizer Chess- which are all Capablanca chess variants (or related games) like Embassy Chess. Nonetheless ...

1. All three editors support the repeated destruction of the entire "initial position properties" section- effectively gutting the article and voiding the main reason for its existence which is to verbally explain what distinguishes Embassy Chess from other Capablanca chess variants.

This is blatant vandalism regardless of what else you ostensibly call it. Consequently, it will be resisted as many times as necessary WITHOUT any legitimate violation of the 3-revert rule on my part.

2. All three editors support the repeated destruction of the credibility of the "initial position properties" section by abusively applying fictitious "original research" notices.

Of supreme significance, no "original research" is referenced from anywhere within this section under attack.

Thus, I will explain my reasons so exhaustively that no prejudicial editors with a corrupt agenda can believably continue to pretend not to understand.

I must refute some unusual, nonsense claims beforehand, though.

The consensus of THREE editors that I have been defying belongs only to conflict-of-interest editors in loose coalition who are intent upon destroying the content of this article and/or its credibility. Samboy has become a highly destructive vandal who risks disciplinary action. Andreas Kaufmann is safe from disciplinary action since his editorial actions and words are plausibly deniable as just being disagreements in value judgments.

The definition of sockpuppetry must entail the simultaneous, active use of MORE THAN ONE account on Wikipedia. To be sure, I am currently using exactly ONE account on Wikipedia. So can the hateful threats.

The claim that ONLY Kevin Hill, the discoverer of Embassy Chess, is illegible to observe universally-observable features of this game is preposterous. Anyone in the world can contribute to the general description of this article if they have sufficient insight! Read the Wikipedia charter if you need.

The claim that only information about this game that has been published in an academic journal (despite it being so simple, accessible and obvious that the editors of such abstract journals would feel no need to publish it) can be published here is preposterous. Chess variants is not a wholly scientific subject. At least, not yet. Responsible, factual descriptions of these games are our best available resource in the present age for constructing encyclopediac entries. If you insist upon applying the "scientific paper" standard to chess variants, then you will (and must, to be consistent and fair) gut virtually every article about chess variants on Wikipedia- a widely destructive act.

The problem does not reside in my behavior. The problem resides in your behavior, Samboy.

This is the pawn protection array for Embassy Chess-

1-2-2-2-3-3-5-1-1-1

From only looking at the diagram of the opening setup for Embassy Chess and understanding how the pieces move, anyone can readily verify that this is correct.

Likewise anyone can readily verify each and every one of the nine listed criteria as being correct. It is not false propaganda nor is it too difficult for the reader to grasp if interested.

My point is that you do not need an academic reference for every one of the most fundamental things mentioned within every Wikipedia article. If properly written, just read the article and it methodically builds the desired understanding.

I need to hear from a larger number of objective, reputable editors without conflicts of interest who oppose listing the features of Embassy Chess before I will be convinced to relent even on the presence of "original research" notices within this article.

--BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok .. now I honestly don't see where the conflict of interest is here .. Andreas Kaufmann created the article to begin with. Both Samboy and myself are editors in www.chessvariants.com , so we know what we are talking about.

This section of the article, even if it's a fact, as you pointed out, was written by Derek Nalls in a discussion happened at the ChessVariants.com forums regarding the best Capablanca Chess setup, and were regarded by Derek Nalls as the only criteria that makes a good starting setup (except for the last point, which was added here by Ed Trice mainly to rule out Optimized Chess.) And these were only published in Derek Nalls' website. So, by definition, it's original research.

I am removing that part of the article, since three editors (against one) agree to removing it. Please don't add it back until there is "a larger number of objective, reputable editors", who have been on this for a while and editing things other than this page(!), and who do agree that the section should be added back.

(Incidentally, even if it's added back, it shouldn't be a separate section, but rather part of the introductory. This is because it's not really a major piece of information anyway. (And shouldn't take more than two lines.) The tone of it currently is very un-encyclopedic in my opinion.

--Sibahi 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I still regard the three of you as esteemed fellow hobbyists even if not friends or no longer friends. So, I was bluffing when I threatened to file disciplinary actions against Samboy (as well as Sibahi) for vandalism although I could. I guess I consider the condition of this page less important than the dignity of people I admire (even though I am usually silent on this point). This does not mean that another honest editor who is hardlined cannot hold you two accountable at any time, though. Please don't destroy this page completely just because Kevin Hill is not around to defend it? --BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Reclusive Kevin Hill

I cannot even find Kevin Hill. Believe me, I have tried. --BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)