|| A thought on an Algorithm for chess ||

By
Shishirbindu Charudatta Buddhisagar

|| Index ||
1) Opening 2) Chess as a mathematical function 3) Fundamental ideology 4) basic structure 5) Piece value calculation 6) The minimum move theory 7) Piece in every house (sub pieces) 8) Sub piece threat 9) The mobility issue 10) What is attack 11) zero position 12) The King problem 13) Threat delay due to check 14) Delay calculations 15) The Bishop problem 16) Consideration of layered threats 17) Comparison of per piece attack vs. organized attack.

18) Factor of exponential threat 19) What is support 20) Floating value considerations 21) Predicting the blockage 22) Predicting the check 23) The Locking problem 24) Forced moves 25) Predicting the checkmate 26) King piece near King 27) The Castling problem 28) The Pawn piece activation problem 29) The Pawn threat away from home problem 30) Pawn in front of Pawn 31) The n pass problem 32) The battle field 33) Martyr Moves 34) The Three repetition problem 35) The Steal mate problem 36) Model game

37) Ending

..!!SSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!..

|| Opening ||
I am delighted and satisfied to be able to write down a thought of an algorithm for chess. Many simple and small things composite a complex structure. Any complex structure disintegrated into smaller parts, becomes easy for understanding. Not arrogance, but a truth is building a search tree is not an intelligent way. This algorithm may not work, or maybe it is too pre mature. Many of the aspects are need to be tested and verified. Many of the aspects of this are like a revelation in it, for example support for a piece is nothing but a proposed attack on the opponents piece or minimum move logic or be it distribution of influence etc. and so I expect a good thought from the reader on these. This algorithm is mainly based on 5 pillars 1) Gain loss calculations for a final total and comparison of next move totals. 2) Piece value and influence 3) Minimum move theory 4) Sub-pieces 5) Support is nothing but a proposed attack. These are followed by many problems and challenges which are discussed in various topics.

This algorithm or few of its components such as floating value considerations, layered threats or any other could be used in conjunction with the conventional ways of search tree, pruning, Alfa beta, heuristics and static evaluation functions etc. Every word, every single line of this has been written after a good thought and then carefully composed. So I request reader to read all this line by line, word by word. As you will go through this sequentially the chapters will become more and more difficult and challenging in terms of solving the issues, understanding and visualization. Sub-piece threat is the most difficult in terms of understanding where as Steal mate is in terms of solving. Although we will be using total influence of a piece through sub-pieces and not the base value of a piece, the whole process of calculating base value is explained just to take you in the thought flow. The paragraphs in green explain the missing links or related aspects or sometimes even simple comments. I request reader to read those as well without omitting.

Thank You!

||

Chess as a mathematical function

||

Chess is a game of definite rules where every piece has a definite way of navigation, scope, influence and limitations.

It is played with a well defined set of rules.

The target or aim of the game is very specific and definite.

In a given situation the number of pieces, their position on the board and their influences all are theoretically calculable entities.

Surely an opponents move depends on number of factors such as his or her own understanding of the situation, intelligence and planning which leads to many probabilities.

Calculation of all those probabilities by brute force with the available calculation capabilities or Restricting and directing the search with the help of Heuristics and other artificial intelligence functions is major challenge faced today while designing an algorithm for chess.

However still we can say that for a given situation the best possible solution does exists.

Reaching for it is the challenge.

{ Brute-Force: - In computer science, brute-force search or exhaustive search, also known as generate and test, is a trivial but very general problem-solving technique that consists of systematically enumerating all possible candidates for the solution and checking whether each candidate satisfies the problem's statement. Heuristic: - refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery. Where an exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, or common sense.}

|| Fundamental Ideology ||

The fundamental ideology behind this algorithm is to create a concept of a system in which we can input the data of piece navigation, piece scope, and piece influence which will reflect the best possible reaction for every opponents action to try maintaining the balance. It is similar to Minimax theorem or zero-sum game but at the same time it gets tricky and complicated. Maybe some loss is inevitable. It is an effort to build an evaluation function of a particular state but which includes the many variables which represent the future influence and the priority is accuracy, not speed.

{ Minimax theorem: - Minimax (sometimes minmax) is a decision rule used in decision theory, game theory, statistics and philosophy for minimizing the possible loss for a worst case (maximum loss) scenario. Alternatively, it can be thought of as maximizing the minimum gain (maximin). Originally formulated for two-player zero-sum game theory, covering both the cases where players take alternate moves and those where they make simultaneous moves, it has also been extended to more complex games and to general decision making in the presence of uncertainty. Minimax theorem The minimax theorem states [1] For every two-person, zero-sum game with finitely many strategies, there exists a value V and a mixed strategy for each player, such that (a) Given player 2's strategy, the best payoff possible for player 1 is V, and (b) Given player 1's strategy, the best payoff possible for player 2 is V. Equivalently, Player 1's strategy guarantees him a payoff of V regardless of Player 2's strategy, and similarly Player 2 can guarantee himself a payoff of V. The name minimax arises because each player minimizes the maximum payoff possible for the othersince the game is zero-sum, he also minimizes his own maximum loss (i.e. maximize his minimum payoff).

Zero-sum game: -In game theory and economic theory, a zerosum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Thus cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others, is a zerosum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally (see marginal utility). In contrast, non-zerosum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses are either less than or more than zero. A zerosum game is also called a strictly competitive game while non-zerosum games can be either competitive or non-competitive.

Static evaluation function: - An evaluation function, also known as a heuristic evaluation function or static evaluation function is a function used by game-playing programs to estimate the value or goodness of a position in the minimax and related algorithms. The evaluation function is typically designed to prioritize speed over accuracy; the function looks only at the current position and does not explore possible moves (therefore static).}

||Basic structure ||
The basic structure is very simple and somewhat similar to zero-sum game but it gets intricate as we consider the behavior of individual pieces.

{ These problems have been discussed in following chapters like King Problem, Bishop Problem, Pawn Problems & Locking Problem etc.} One more major challenge is we are not tracing a probability tree here but it is not a static evaluation function either as we will be calculating the values for those variables who reflect the future influences of the pieces.

{ This is discussed in detail in following chapters like The mobility issue, Predicting the blockage, Consideration of layered threats, Sub piece threat, Threat delay due to check, Predicting the check, Predicting the checkmate & Predicting the locks etc.}

Now coming back to the basic structure it is roughly as follows. Consider that every piece has a value Piece value is the influence of that piece on other pieces. The value of a piece is directly depends on its mobility for the next move.

{Now, how to calculate a piece value? If it is directly depending on the mobility for the next move then should it change with the situation or remain constant? These topics are discussed in Piece value chapter. The King poses a unique challenge in this case as its mobility is less compared to some pieces but still we need to protect it. We cannot simply assign a greater value to it. It might unnecessarily overprotect the king by sidelining other threats. All these problems are discussed in The King problem chapter.}

Every pieces threat to the opponent is calculated and stored as a +ve entity for us Every opponents pieces threat to our pieces is calculated and stored as a ve entity

{Suppose there are two pieces say B1 for black piece and W1for white piece. Now when we say B1 has some amount of threat from W1 means how quickly W1 can move to B1s place. Now as a part of strategy W1 might take a different or longer rout. So how do we calculate a value for threat? This is discussed in chapter The minimum move theory, What is attack, What is support, Piece in every house (sub pieces), The mobility issue, Consideration of layered threats and Sub piece threat etc.}

When player has to make a move, all possibilities for the next move are calculated and for each move a total is calculated with the addition of all +ve and ve entities for that particular situation on board. In the end the strongest sum is considered as the best move and is played.

{Still this is not simply a conventional static evaluation function as we will be considering the future influences also and accuracy is priority, not speed.}

||Piece value calculation ||

Every piece has a value. Piece value is its influence. Piece influence is directly depends on its mobility for the next move. More the mobility more the influence. A Queen can move up to maximum 28 places for the next move where as a Rook can move up to maximum 14 places for the next move. So the influence of Queen is more than Rook. And this is same for all other pieces except King. The King poses a unique problem for this logic as its mobility for the next move is less than Queen, Rook & Bishop and thus a lesser influence and a lesser value eventually. In a hypothetical situation where there is an equal attack on King and Queen the calculations would certainly incline for the Queens safety. But in reality, given a perfect opportunity one could even scarify some pieces if a definite capture of the opponents King is possible. Thus a situation is possible where a player has significantly lesser number of pieces but has a definite positional advantage to capture opponents King. {The above sentence is actually tricky and somewhat out of context too but purposefully written to envelop the thought process for similar circumstances. i.e. Here we are not comparing the sum of the piece values of two sides.

We are comparing all the possible sums (total for gain and loss) of the next possible moves of a player. e.g. There are two players A & B and suppose A has 10 pieces less than B, and suppose its A players turn and he has 14 possible next moves, then we will be comparing sums of those 14 moves. A has not reached 10 pieces less in a single move and if a loss is happening at a particular stage is primarily because of wrong selection of the move which should be solved in the evaluation function. } Coming to the point of bringing importance to the king in an equal threat scenario with other co-pieces, it is sure that we need to increase its influence. But we cannot simply give any random higher value to king as it might mislead the calculations such as unnecessarily over calculating a threat for King over a genuine immediate threat for the other piece. This problem can be solved with the help of two methods without unnecessarily giving a higher value to King. 1) Considering a threat for King one step earlier. We give check to the King which says that a piece of opponent can now come to Kings place in the next move. Thus overall increasing threats to King by opponents all pieces one step earlier and eventually increase its importance a little. { This King problem has been discussed later in chapters, The King problem, Consideration of layered threats, Threat delay due to check etc.} 2) When a King dies it dies with the whole game and all pieces. Thus we can think of a factor which calculates overall threat to game as overall combined ve value of all pieces against threat to King by all opponents pieces. Whereas for other calculations we can assign King its normal value depending on its mobility so as not to affect calculation by an unnecessary threat indication to it. That means in fact we are calculating the threat for King and using it in two ways. a) Calculating threat for King by every opponents while by keeping its value true to its influence. b) Calculating a factor whose value will be the sum of values of all pieces and which will use the threat data of the King as its own and will keep a track on mobility and strategically squeezing of the King in calculations.

{ This is discussed in detail in chapter, Predicting the Chekmate, consideration of layered threats. }

Thus as a King will be squeezed by reducing mobility and attack, the overall factor will show signs of defeat whereas in other board calculations King is playing with the true influence value by not affecting the immediate threat for other pieces.

Another two major problems are

1) Whether we should keep a fixed value for pieces or should it change as mobility of a piece changes on board depending on its position and position of other pieces.

My thought over this is that a piece value is its capacity which is fixed and when it has moved on the corners or at edges automatically it will take longer routs to reach an opponent thus by reducing their threat which has now been already registered as a plus for the opponent in calculations and now there is no need to again further reduce its value for the same thing.

2) Now the mobility of a piece can be obstructed by its own pieces or by opponents pieces. So should we consider these two as same or different?

Again same thing. If a piece has been obstructed by its own pieces it will take longer time to reach opponents pieces and thus reducing their threat which has now already been registered in calculations so no need to further again reduce its value.

And if it is been surrounded by opponents pieces then again two considerations a) It is able to pose a direct threat to obstructing pieces. If it is able to pose a threat to surrounding opponents pieces then a plus value is already been increased in the calculations accordingly. No need to increase or

decrease the piece value, its positions has added plus or minus in calculations accordingly. b) It is not able to put a direct threat to obstructing pieces and is purposefully blocked and trapped.

If it is not posing a direct threat to surrounding then that means its threat to the opponent pieces has already been further reduced in the calculations so no need to again reduce the piece value or the same thing.

In short a piece value remains constant where as its positive or negative influence on the pieces changes accordingly to its own and other pieces position on board which adds positives or negatives to the calculations accordingly. We can say that the basic value of a piece is constant but its influence on other pieces in different situations can be called as its true value which will automatically be represented in the gain-loss calculations. Thus a conclusion is that the base value of a piece is constant. Now when it is surrounded by its own pieces or with opponents pieces you cannot say when the surrounding pieces will make a way for it removing the blockage, esp. for opponent pieces. But this will be considered in calculating and predicting threat and support influence values for those situations. Base value of a piece remains constant. {This will be discussed further in chapters, What is threat, What is support, Mobility issue, The locking problem, Predicting the locks, Threat delay due to check etc.} Furthermore, in many situations a piece may have been surrounded by other pieces and has very low mobility but still it hold a strategically important position ( in terms of threat to opponent and support), so to just increase its value (if it is supposed to be changing with mobility) by increasing its mobility we should not overlook its strategic importance.

Now let us think about giving an exact value to a piece. As discussed, value of a piece is directly proportional to its capacity to move in maximum number of places for the next move. A King can move up to 8 places for the next move whereas a Queen can move up to 28 places for the next move.

This is a big difference. But this doesnt indicate the maximum total possible influence of a piece over the whole board. Now here we should be comparing the total influence of pieces and not only number of places a piece can move for the next move. This will be the total maximum influence of that piece on the board without obstructions. This will be the base value of a piece. Now when it will face obstructions such as blocking by other pieces or by moving to corners of the board, these will be reflected while calculating the attack influence which will in turn add positives and negatives to total calculations (but base value which is total achievable influence of a piece on whole board remains constant). Total maximum achievable influence of a piece is the sum of influences of that piece on all influenced blocks. { Note that here we are calculating the base influence of a piece. The actual influence of a piece is the influence it has exerted on other pieces. } Now let us consider the total influence of a piece over one block when it captures that block is 1 if that piece is moving in the specified block in the next move. If it is taking 2 moves for a piece to capture that block then the influence of that piece on that block will be . So we can say that the influence of a piece over a block is 1 divided by the number of minimum possible moves it will take to reach that block. For every piece except a pawn a piece actually moves in that place. In case of pawn its path is straight but it influences the diagonally placed blocks from the next row. So we should consider those blocks as influenced and not the actual one in which the pawn will move. More than that we also need to think on n pass rule. { This is discussed in chapters n pass problem & Pawn in front of Pawn in detail. }

The Queen Base value Now to calculate the base value for the queen let us keep it in one of the central blocks and see how it can navigate through the board in minimum moves.

Let us see the places where it can move in the next move.

Now lets see the places where it can move in two moves.

So the total influence of the queen on board will be somewhat like this.

The Pawn base value

There is a difference between the threat posed by any other piece and threat posed by Pawn. Other pieces usually reach out to opponent pieces to pose a threat and kill, where as Pawn kills those pieces which come under its diagonal house area in the adjacent column only. Pawn has restrictions and cannot go in all the houses on the board.

|| The Minimum move theory ||

This is one of the most central concepts of this algorithm. Chess is often called a game of probability as for many moves a player has many possible options to tryout and those depend on that players understanding of the situation, experience and strategy. When we say that a blacks piece say B has a growing threat from a whites piece say W means W has a growing capacity to reach at Bs place in lesser moves. It means that W is approaching B. So basically a threat of a piece to another is its capacity to reach that piece in minimum moves. There are basically four things to think about 1) There could be more than one ways to reach a piece in same number of moves

2) As a strategy an opponent may choose a longer rout. 3) What to do when an obstruction of another piece comes in the minimum way? A) What if that piece is of its own B) What if that piece is of opponents? You cannot say when it will move. 4) What if the obstruction has even further obstructions in turn which makes its mobility for the next move to decrease? { This is been even further discussed in chapters like What is threat, and What is support.} Now let us consider these cases one by one Now, there could be more than one ways to reach a piece. Primarily, when we say that an opponents piece can kill one of our piece means it can now reach to it in few moves. So the threat is basically in how many minimum moves a piece can reach towards another piece. Now when we say that we need to focus on mainly the shortest possible way a piece reaches to another, then also there could be more than one ways for a piece to reach to opponents piece in same number of minimum possible moves. Primarily in this, the path doesnt matter as far as the threat is going to remain same. And further comparisons between the two possible minimum move paths will be automatically done on the basis of how it affects other pieces who are associated with these routes, and will be reflected in the calculation of those pieces and thus in the final calculation too. Furthermore these comparisons will be done easy when we will be putting a sub-piece for every piece in every house that will help calculate the influence and changes in it of all the pieces on all places of the board. {}

Now suppose from a strategic point of view an opponent chooses to attack on a piece from a longer route then also every move of the opponents piece has been regularly monitors in the calculations of threat, plus through the calculations and influences of sub-pieces. So once the opponent starts building on the pressure of attack, it automatically again gets reflected and updated through influences as it approaches the piece or starts blocking it. This has been further explained in the below example. {} { This is further discussed in chapter piece in every house (sub-pieces).} Now what if the shortest route has obstructions due to other pieces? In this case suppose there is any obstruction in the path due to any other piece of its own or of its opponent, the path into consideration i.e. the number of moves it is taking to reach

the other object should be added with the number of minimum moves required to remove that block or piece, and then it should be compared with the second best possible minimum route. If still it holds the position of a minimum or shortest route then it should be counted so, else the second best should be the minimum move way. { In fact later on we will be considering a sub-piece for every piece in every house which will be having a varying value depending upon the position of its parent piece, and these subpieces are bound to create some obstacles with varying floating influence. So in fact a minimum move path or any path is always flooded with obstacles with floating values and is delayed accordingly. This is further discussed in the following chapters as it is one of the core parts of this algorithm which tries to differentiate this from continuous iterations, or probability tree creation. As of now it is better to restrict our thoughts only on occurrence or non occurrence (yes/no) of obstacle in a traditional way.} {} Now the blocking piece could be our own or of the opponent and whether to move it now or later depends on the strategy and positional advantages. But then these benefits and losses are being calculated in attack and defense calculations, and depending upon the loss or gain we might take a decision but as of now we are calculating the best minimum way existing on board. It is just like a magnetic field of one piece on the other, whether it will be enforced or diffused will depend on comparison of final totals of loss and gain. Now suppose there is an obstruction of a piece which could be moved for the next move, but if removed it might cause severe loss, then this loss is also being already considered into the calculations and that shouldnt prevent us from calculating the influence of pieces if suppose its removed from the next shortest possible move. {}

|| Piece in every house (Sub Pieces)

||

This is one of the central concepts of this algorithm to calculate the distribution of influence of a piece in every house of the board. While calculating the base value for a piece we had put all the pieces in all the houses and calculated the values for that piece in that house depending upon the number of minimum moves required to reach there.

Now let us consider a piece as a sub-piece in every house for all black and white pieces. Value of a sub piece will be equal to its parent or main piece when they are in the same house and it will decrease according to the number of minimum moves parent piece takes to reach the house of that sub-piece. Thus a sub-piece is a representative of the main piece in that particular house and its value changes according to the position of the main piece. A sub-piece helps us to calculate the distribution of the influence of a piece over the board. Similarly opponents pieces also have influence on sub pieces and vice versa. So when a piece dies all the sub-pieces and their respective influences on the opponents pieces also vanishes. Thus the actual influence and value of a piece is its collective influence of all sub-pieces. This further helps stabilize the influences and reduce the instant fluctuations in calculations. {This is explained in chapter The Bishop problem}

This will help us calculate many things such as, 1) Comparison between minimum move paths in piece threats. 2) Calculating the mobility of a piece 3) Predicting the Locks 4) Predicting the blockage 5) Predicting the check 6) Predicting the threat delay due to check 7) Predicting the checkmate 8) Piece true value and overall influence calculations 9) Calculating Pawn piece activations 10) Solving N Pass problem 11) Calculating Pawn threat away from home 12) Solving Castling Problem 13) Predicting Martyr moves In this chapter we will discuss only about comparison between minimum move paths in piece threats and predicting the blockage, all other things will be discussed in their respective chapters dedicated for them. So eventually a sub-piece exists in all houses and it doesnt actually changes its position but changes its value, and the value of the sub-piece is equal to the value of its parent piece when they are in a same house. This means that a piece actually doesnt exists, what exists are only sub-pieces with varying values (and thats why the name of the algorithm as

Diffuse). But for the sake of understanding we will refer the sub-pieces as pieces that have value equal to their parent. Pieces influence (opponents) pieces. Sub-pieces influence (opponents) sub-pieces. Every sub-piece creates an obstacle at its place. The strength of this obstacle depends upon the value of the sub-piece which gradually increases or decreases in situations. So basically it is like a fluid of influence flooded everywhere on board with varying density. Now whenever we have to calculate a minimum move path between any two sub-pieces, it is already flooded with other sub-pieces with varying values as obstacles which combined delay that path accordingly. So any obstacle in any way is not a sudden appearance but it gains its or losses its value in a floating way. And the path is delayed accordingly. In this way we can predict a considerable building of a blockage at a particular house. {This is also discussed in Floating value considerations.}

|| Sub-piece threat ||

Now suppose at place A, whites X has a piece in 2 moves and at place B blacks Y has a piece in three moves. At a place C an obstacle is being built after say four moves. But all have been already represented by the respective sub-objects in those places. Now while calculating the influences between the sub-pieces, again we have minimum ways between two sub-pieces we can consider sub-sub-pieces for a sub-piece and so on. And again these might have sub-sub-pieces as obstacles. Thus again it may go on iterating and will eventually create a probability tree. So a thought comes to mind that maybe even after calculating values and positions with minimum move theory we are not calculating any threat logic and eventually probability tree is inevitable. But, a sub-piece exists in every house. It creates an obstacle at that place. The floating value of the sub-pieces is constantly indicating the floating influence at that place. Its value can be maximum 1 when its parent piece is in the same house. In any minimum way we take into consideration all obstructing sub-pieces and it delays the path accordingly.

So even for the above example the obstacle at C is being built may counter and an obstacle at a place say D, is already being reflected in the calculations with the floating value of subpieces which are already present at D. And thus it represents the influence for the future moves just like a probability tree. {}

|| The Mobility issue

||

In some situation a conflict arises between the mobility of a piece against threat to another piece. In short, you could face a situation where at one hand you have a piece being blocked from all sides and immobilized where as another piece is in threat. Now the priority entirely depends on the overall board situation. And the board situation can be better represented with the help of all sub-pieces and their influences. But the main challenge is how to calculate the true change in influence of a piece due to change in its mobility accurately. But this problem has also been resolved with the help of sub-pieces and their influences. When the mobility of a piece is decreased, it causes a significant depression in the value of its sub-pieces and their influences and the collective effect is large.

One of the best examples is one which is given below where the Queen is under immediate attack and the King is at the corner after Castling with three Pawns blocking it in the last row and the opponents Rook is set to Check Mate in next move. This is the ultimate test of Kings influence compared with Queen. {} But still in any case pure influence of Queen will be always more compared to King as it also has sub-pieces and their influences. And for this the Kings value and influence can be increased with the help of considering factors such as considering threat for King one step earlier and Threat delay due to check. Now in this case, the sub-piece of Rook in the highlighted house should add a significant threat in the calculations as well as threat delays on opponent to predict a check. Now if we move any Pawn in front of the King or move King one move right so as to make an escape way, it significantly increases the influence of it on opponents pieces but still even then at check moving King should remain the priority and it will be if it is for the above mentioned situation too.

|| What is Attack ||

The base value of a piece helps us calculate the distribution of its influence on board. The total influence of a piece is the collective influence of all its sub-pieces which is in fact its true value and its attack on the opponent. Total collective influences of all pieces is the total collective attack. Every house on the board in fact becomes a battle field with different sub-pieces of black and white putting their influence in there. As the influence of pieces from one side increase, it reduces the influence of opponents piece in that house accordingly and thus increasing influence of pieces of one side start creating a blockage and attack delay for the opponent in a house. After knowing all this still its not clear when one piece attacks the other and how should we put it in the calculations? Its time to decide the value of a sub-piece once and all. There are few options for consideration.

1) Base value of its parent piece divided by the number of minimum moves required for parent piece to reach in that house. 2) Influence of a parent piece in house is maximum 1 for that particular sub-piece of the parent and varies according to the number of minimum moves it takes to reach there. The second example is similar to what we have done while calculating the base value of a piece and looks more relevant. The base value of a piece has already gives the idea of the total distribution and comparative difference of total influence of a piece. And in every house by setting its maximum as 1 for any piece, is it Queen or a Pawn we have done this. The first example is faulty as we are considering the base value of a piece in calculation of every sub-piece thus counting the same thing repeatedly and multiplying the effect. So now we will concentrate on the second example but we have one more problem at hand. That is, what value for the sub-piece we should consider which is hosting the parent piece in its house? One thing from the consideration of the second example is clear that this value should be same for all the pieces on board whether it is Queen or Pawn. { This discussion is not done in Piece value chapter as the concept of Sub-pieces was not introduced at that time and a true piece value is in fact its attack.} { Coming back to the point of calculating the value of a Sub-piece which is hosting the parent piece in its house, this topic is elaborated in chapter Zero position.} Now again coming back to the point of putting all this in calculations we need to analyze every house separately as a small battle field in there between influences of all pieces. Suppose there is a piece called W of white and two pieces from black, say B1 and B2 respectively. In a particular house the influence of W i.e. the value of the Sub-piece of W in that house is say 1 as it is able to come in that house in the very next move. The values for Sub-pieces for B1 & B2 in that house is say 0.5 & 0.3 respectively. The battle between W and B1 in that house is (1-0.5) and the battle between W and B2 in that house is (1-0.3). Now keeping in mind the logic of Minimum move theory where we consider only the maximum possible threat from an opponents piece, similarly here we can say that the threat from B1 is greater than the threat from B2 and it already shows how much quickly W can get killed and so we should be concerning only about that threat and adding other

threats for the same piece (Although it has been already defined how quickly it can be killed) we will be unnecessarily multiplying it. But the thing is it in fact doesnt multiplies the threat when we consider threat to a piece from all opponents pieces as they are from different pieces and we should be counting them all the time and for the same purpose we have implemented the logic of Sub-pieces for every Piece so that we can track the change in influence of all the Pieces on board.

|| Zero position ||

Here we have one unsolved problem in our hand that is, what should be the value of a Subpiece which hosts the parent Piece in its house? We have already said that and have considered while calculating the base value of a piece that the maximum value of a Sub-piece in a house is 1 if it can reach to it in the very next move. And for other houses it is 1 divided by the number of minimum moves required for that piece to reach that house i.e. if it reaches a house in say 2 moves then the value of the Sub-piece should be i.e. 0.5 for that house. One more assumption we have made that the value of a Sub-piece is equal to its parent piece if the parent piece is in the same house or in other words if that Sub-piece hosts the parent piece. And in the last chapter we have also said that this value should be same for all the pieces whether it is a Queen or a Pawn and the difference between their influences will be reflected through the value and number of their Sub-pieces. Keeping the same logic in mind, we can say that the value of a Sub-piece which hosts the parent piece is infinity as the number of minimum moves required for it to reach there is zero as it is already in the same house. So again the question is, if not infinity what should be the value of a Sub-piece in that house? Should it be big? And how much if so? To avoid this we can do a simple trick. Consider the value of the Sub-piece which hosts the parent piece as 1 for all pieces as if they have arrived there from a 0th imaginary position in one move. And for the next move (which is in fact the immediate first next move.) we can consider it as i.e. 1 divided by the number of minimum moves required for that piece to be in that house. Even after considering this when we calculate the values for all Sub-pieces for a piece, the basic structure remains same and comparative values of pieces also remain same avoiding the infinity problem.

{May be the problem never existed, we created and solved it.}

|| The King problem || || Threat delay due to check ||

This is one of the important aspects to give King its deserved importance without unnaturally increasing its value. Whenever check is given we need to remove the threat to the King either by moving it or by blocking the check with the help of other pieces. This in turn delays the threat to opponents pieces caused by ours which indirectly increases the importance of King. Although there is no check to the King at a particular situation, many sub-pieces of opponents pieces are always in a position to give check to the King. But their value has not reached to the value of their parent piece. In fact the threat has not reached to its maximum for King. But it is always a varying and it delays the threat of our pieces for opponent accordingly in a floating variation. So this means that whenever there is any delay it is not in integers like one move or two moves but it is in fact a floating value. Similarly whenever there is any blockage between the minimum moves path by another piece, it is also not sudden but is built gradually by increasing value of sub-pieces and is floating and becomes predictable. This is the main topic of discussion in Floating value considerations chapter.

|| Delay calculations ||

Different pieces react differently to blockages and gets a delay on their path accordingly.

If a Rook or Queen encounters an opponents piece on its linear way along a column of row or even on a diagonal way, it has to first kill that piece and move forward producing a delay of one move. Where as a King might simply keep on moving by killing that piece without creating a delay for any move in the same situation if that piece doesnt poses a threat to King. And if it pose a threat to King, then again the situation is different and it creates a delay accordingly.

||

The Bishop problem

||

The Bishop Problem or problem with the Bishop is that Bishop from the white house cant go to black house and vice versa. Thus, a situation of conflict may arise where if we move the Queen to the black house to avoid the threat from the opponents Bishop in white house (which is not an immediate threat) raises the positive in the total calculations (as now there is no threat whatsoever to Queen from Bishop) more than that of an immediate threat for a Pawn. Now whether it should be or not entirely depends on the board situations. But this also has been made fairer by sub-pieces of Queen, Bishop and Pawn. As sub-pieces of Queen are still being affected by Bishop and his sub-pieces it has reduced the intensity of sudden ON/OFF of the threat to Queen by Bishop.

|| Consideration of layered threats ||

Layered threat is nothing but creating and referring to different threat charts. Mainly we will be using this in 1) 2) 3) 4) Predicting the Check-mate. Deciding piece activation in the Pawns last house. Predicting (and forcing) Steal-mate Predicting (and forcing) martyr moves.

|| Comparison between per piece attacks vs. organized attack ||

Organized attack is basically a trap on opponents piece or pieces by gradually decreasing their mobility and increasing the attack threat, which if disintegrated, is nothing but a collective per piece attack of all involved pieces which is already being reflected in the final gain-loss calculations of total for the respective pieces from the moment we start the trap. So the best response being calculated through comparison of totals is nothing but a trap being set. The calculation should invariably show us to the best possible trap.

|| Factor of exponential threat ||

This is one of the oldest concepts of this algorithm. It was designed well before the concept of sub-piece and may have lost its significance after the inclusion of sub-pieces or maybe still we can use it in conjunction. This was designed to set the priorities for threats. Now suppose there are two pieces, one is a Pawn and the other is Queen (The difference between their values if more than between any other two pieces). Now suppose there is a direct threat to the Pawn and there is threat to queen also at next move. Now as Queens value is much more than the Pawn, it may happen that in this situation also the calculations will tend to protect the Queen (which can be moved on the next move also )at the cost of Pawn.

{ This problem has been removed with the help of sub-pieces as we can more accurately calculate the values of pieces and whether a piece should be saved or left for dying depending upon the overall situation at that time on board. Also, we will be considering sub-pieces for the pieces which will be activated when a Pawn reaches to the last house. These sub-pieces gain their value step by step as a Pawn approaches the last house and thus have an increasing influence. So losing a Pawn also costs loss for these sub-pieces. This has been further discussed in chapters related to Pawn problems like, Pawn piece activation problem, Pawn threat away from home etc.} Now coming back to the point of considering an exponential threat factor, it is a number which we will be subtracting from the minimum moves while calculating the influence or threat of a piece at a particular house. As we have seen, maximum influence of a piece in a house is 1 and is reduced as it moves away from it. (This we have seen at the time of calculating piece values) So a piece reaching to a house in two moves will have half of the influence. i.e. And so for a piece which will be reaching in three moves will be 1/3 So it is 1 divided by minimum moves, lets say M. So a threat of a piece in a house is always 1/M of that piece for that house. Now let us consider an exponential threat factor as X which we will be subtracting from minimum move M. So now the threat will be 1/ (M-X). Now let us for now consider the value for threat exponential factor X as 0.3. (Now this is a topic of research.) So now suppose if a piece is moving toward a house step by step starting from minimum 5 moves, the increasing influence with and without the exponential threat factor will be as following. Without exponential threat factor: 1/5, , 1/3, , 1/1. Which is a linear graph. With exponential threat factor: 1/ (5-0.3), 1/ (4-0.3), 1/ (3-0.3), 1/ (2-0.3), 1/ (1-0.3) Which is ultimately: 1/(4.7), 1/(3.7), 1/(2.7), 1/(1.7), 1/(0.7) which is an exponential graph and it increases the importance of threat more than linear growth.

{As I said, this was originally designed much more before the inclusion of sub-pieces, when I considered the values of pieces depending upon their mobility for the next move without sub-pieces. I. e. 28 for Queen and 8 for King. So the difference was proportionately much more. When considered Queen and King both coming under attack under next few moves and that we consider threat for King one step earlier, 28/ (2-0.3) is less than 8/ (1-0.3).

|| What is support

||

Support is nothing but a proposed attack on the opponents piece. When we say that a piece has a support of the other piece means that other piece has posed to kill the killer of the first piece if it conquers that. {I started with adding a positive when it was supported by other piece and realized that it is unnecessarily increasing the importance of pieces that are supported by many over the pieces who r not immediately supported. Furthermore as support is nothing but a proposed attack to the opponents pieces the positives for the support has already been calculated in final total through this so no need to further add values for support.}

||

Floating value considerations ||

A sub-piece represents a parent piece in that house after certain moves. This makes it predict the approach or moving away of the parent piece at that place instead of sudden appearance or disappearance of a piece in a house which is very important in tactical calculations. This is in a way floating value representation of a piece in a house. Now if we apply this to even the paths or number of moves, it gives us tremendous flexibility in calculations and doesnt affect the basic Total comparison idea.

||

Predicting the blockage ||

Sub-pieces fill the board. So they are bound to create an obstruction for many of the minimum paths of many pieces to other. Their value (influence) changes depending upon the position of their parent piece and when it is equal to it we consider a piece (the parent one) at that place which adds one step delay to all the crossing minimum move paths on which it rests. But before that when its value was not maximum there was no parent piece at its place and virtually no blockage to the minimum move paths crossing it. So this makes blockage ON when its value is equal to its parent piece, and OFF when it is less than that. This doesnt predict the blockage and makes it suddenly appear at a particular move. So instead of this we consider a blockage from that sub-piece in a floating manner as its value being increased by approaching parent piece, we can delay the crossing minimum move paths accordingly in a floating way instead of integer values. Now this will reflect the gradual building of a blockage at a particular place and makes it predictable.

||

Predicting the check

||

As we consider a sub-piece for every piece in every house and then threats also from the sub-pieces, obviously many of the sub-pieces are in check position for King. And as the value of a sub-piece causing check increases depending upon the position of its parent piece, we can predict a check (as we understand) in happening.

In fact, check is not something which is given at a particular move but is always there from sub-pieces and has a floating value influence depending upon the floating value sub-pieces and becomes predictable through them. {Every floating influence check by a sub-piece influences a delay in threat for opponent by all our pieces accordingly and thus gives King its deserved importance in calculations.}

||

The Locking problem

||

When we obstruct a check to our King with the help of our own piece, we can say that the piece is locked as it cant be moved now. Similarly opponent also tries to lock our pieces as a strategic gain. Again this lock also can be predicted the same way we can predict a check with the help of sub-piece which has already applied a check to King. A lock adds a delay in the threat to opponents all pieces from the locked piece. Thus the gains and losses of this are automatically being calculated and there is no need to add any extra component to calculations to avoid it.

||

Forced moves

||

The moves which are inevitable for a player are forced moves. Any other move is simply illegal. We can very well recognize a move as forced move. Mainly the King is involved in this.

||

Predicting the checkmate

||

||

King piece near King

||

In fact, we cant put King Piece in adjacent house of another King. Till now we have not made any provision in calculations to stop this from happening. But we need not to worry as when this is done for calculating a total, automatically the threat factor for King will be so high that the step will be avoided. { There is one chance that a king is being given check and is blocked in all surrounding houses, one of those is adjacent to opponents King, and then it might choose to jump in that as it also increases opponents threat too. But this have been discussed in The steal mate problem, and Predicting the checkmate.}

||

The Castling problem ||

After Castling King and Rook take a new position other than the one which they would have taken normally. In these places also we can consider a special sub-piece for King and Rook and calculate their floating (as Castling too does have obstacles and delays) influence on other pieces on board. Similarly sub-pieces of Rook and King also have their influences on others. Now here we have two kinds of obstacles for Castling. 1) Obstacle due to pieces (our own or opponents) 2) Attack on King or Rook or any other house in between them. Depending upon these, the Castling gets delayed. Now should we consider the Castling related sub-pieces of King and Rook little different than others as they should not have any influence and should simply vanish if the Castling is not done or cancelled? If yes, then this change will be little sudden and jerky and not smooth for the calculations

Now we have a tricky situation in hand. Keeping in mind the logic of sub-pieces, we have already put them in all the places for Rook and King also and their value depends upon the number of minimum moves required for the respective parent piece to reach those houses. We will think on two options. 1) Considering two separate sets of sub-pieces for Rook and King, one for with Castling and the other for without Castling. 2) While deciding the value of a sub-piece of Rook or King, considering the minimum move way between the piece and the sub-piece by comparing the shortest possible one with Castling and one without Castling. And however is the shortest in between these two should be the final minimum move way. Now consider the first example. If we consider two separate sub-piece sets for Rooks and King with Castling and without, then either one complete set of sub-pieces should die if Castling is done or cancelled respectively. This change cant be smooth and will affect the board even more. Now consider the second example Here we will be keeping only one set of sub-pieces for King and Rook and we will be calculating the values for the same by comparing shortest between minimum with Castling and without and however is the shortest will be the final minimum move way. This sounds more logical and also in tune with the minimum move theory and doesnt affect the board calculations in a jerky way suddenly. Even the Castling is cancelled then also the sub-pieces have values calculated in normal way by minimum move theory and the piece doesnt get vanish suddenly. This is also applicable for the other Rook which was not involved in the Castling.

||

The Pawn piece activation problem

||

When a Pawn reaches to the last house it can activate a piece. Now we have three major problems in hand. 1) Which piece will be or to be activated 2) How to predict and calculate the influence of the pieces. 3) What if the Pawn kills a piece and changes the column

We can consider a sub-piece in the last house which gains its strength step by step as Pawn approaches it. We can also consider sub-pieces for the Pawn in all the last houses. As we know, a Pawn can change its column if it gets an opportunity to kill a piece. Thus the piece in last house it may activate may also be in another column and the value of it may change depending on the number of moves that Pawn may take to reach there. Now these steps vary depending upon other pieces also which may come in way to Pawns threat zone so as it can kill them and all these possibilities can be calculated in every move by sub-objects of other pieces which are already in Pawns attack zone.

||

The Pawn threat away from home problem

||

While calculating the value of the Pawn we have seen that the threat from a Pawn is not where it is moving in a straight column but on the diagonal side houses to them. A Pawn can change multiple columns by killing more than one piece diagonally and thus we need to calculate its influence to these places too. But a major difference between threat from sub-pieces of other pieces and Pawn is that for a Pawn to kill diagonally it has to wait for other pieces to come in its way so as to be killed. So its threat is something which could be completely avoided by the opponent. This is similar problem of decision making as was in calculating the blockage from our pieces and opponents as we cant surely tell when opponent will remove its piece and the blockage. But again similarly here, we need to calculate the possible influence which is like a danger zone around it or like a magnetic field, whoever comes in between will feel the influence, whether other piece will come under its influence by self or is to be forced on to it by moving our piece is another matter. Similar to Bishop Pawn also cant go in all houses but still many moves of it can be predictable as it affects the sub-pieces of other pieces in those houses where it could go. This doesnt let the influence of Pawn on a piece sudden switch on or off.

||

Pawn in front of Pawn ||

||

The n pass problem ||

This is somewhat similar to Castling problem but has a wider impact on board situation as the attacking Pawn has already reached in the second half of the board thus by increasing the influence of the hidden Sub-pieces of those who will/may get activated if the Pawn reaches the end house. Now suppose there is a Pawn from white in the F5 and a Pawn of black is in E7. Now the immediate threat from the white Pawn in the next move is in E6 and G6. If the Pawn of black in E7 jumps to E5

||

The battle field ||

In chess when two pieces from of opposite side having more than one support pose a direct threat to one or other we can say that a battle field is being created at a particular house. In such situations more than one piece sometimes even 4/5 pieces from both sides get involved in this. In this the sequencing of the usage of pieces to be used is very important. Now suppose a Bishop of white has support from Queen, Rook & Pawn and suppose Bishop of black is in direct attack with the Bishop in white and is having support of two Pawns, Rook and Queen respectively from its side. { well, as mentioned earlier a support is nothing but a proposed attack. This means the Queen, Rook & Pawn of white have actually created a potential threat to the Bishop, two Pawns, Rook & queen in the house of white Bishop.} Now in this situation use of the queen should be done at the last whereas use of Pawns should be done in the beginning of battle. In fact we actually dont need to worry and make a special arrangement about this as this has already been taken care of in the total calculations with the help of Sub-pieces and their influences from both sides.

For example, if we use Queen at the beginning of battle and lose that piece then automatically we will lose the influence of its Sub-pieces and a major loss is registered in the final total of gain loss calculations. Thus such move will obviously not reflect a biggest final total and the move will get avoided. Naturally the care for the right sequencing has been taken through Sub-pieces and all the influences.

||

Martyr moves ||

Martyr moves are the one where a piece sacrifices itself for a bigger gain eventually. And obviously this gain is more than the influence of that piece. Remember, that the better situation gained after sacrificing a piece has not been achieved suddenly but has already been indicated by the Sub-pieces.

||

The Three repetition problem ||

Now when an opponent purposefully goes for three repetitions invariably we may have to go for the second best final total choice and which may not be beneficial. So we have a choice to select it or stick to the best and allow the opponent for a draw. It is not much challenging to predict a situation where opponent can force a three repetition but whether to implement it or not is the real issue as it might overload the calculations. If the suggested best move by the total calculations for the next move is equal to the position of previous move then there is a danger of three repetitions. This was all about knowing the situation, now about predicting it before.

Here still we are not calculating the probability tree for check future three repetition situations. Sub-pieces help us predict the increase and decrease of influences and thus blocking, Castling, Check etc. but to calculate the totals of two situations where there is a possibility of repetition, first they have to be in the same influence value as for those situations. There could be probably two ways to do this. 1) Looking one step ahead. 2) Indication by two maximum threat houses. Looking one step ahead is not actually probability tree creation. When the best total is calculated for us, we can then calculate the best total for the opponent also by similar calculations but for him (kind of playing his side also). And if that opponents next step move calculated by us shows the position of the previous state of his then we can say that it could be a situation of three repetitions. But by this method we cannot predict a strategic built-up by opponent for three repetition. Here the second technique may help. (i.e. Indication by two maximum threat houses.) Here we are primarily considering that with the help of this entire algorithm and its structure we are able to target the weakest point of opponent or we are trying to play the best possible move. That means we are trying to play the move which will create the maximum possible loss or minimum possible benefit for the opponent. Thus repeating moves is supposed to be in the best interest of the opponent. And if it is not and still opponent tries to repeat the moves then as it is not in his best interest, naturally our calculations will also not necessarily get indulge into repeating with him and take an advantage by the other way around. So basically when opponent repeats the moves of a piece means that two sub-pieces of that piece have close values (as it can reach both of them by a difference of one move) and total gain loss threats in these two houses are more than any other totals for the opponent. Here it is not necessary to apply the same algorithm for calculating final gain-loss totals for opponent separately as done for the first example as our first two major total gains are obviously opponents major total losses and have been already calculated in our totals. And this can be predictable through sub-pieces. Thus with this even we can predict a gradual built-up for three repetition.

||

The Steal Mate problem ||

Steal mate poses another unique and very interesting and one of the toughest challenges. Till now we have been trying so hard to nail down the King by reducing its mobility and attacking it from all possible sides and ways. And this we are doing with the help of subpieces around the King by increasing their value. So in fact in a steal mate situation, the King is perfectly blocked by surrounding sub-pieces and is attacked (just not directly) at its second worst. But a steal mate is a draw and this is definitely a benefit and even could be a life saver for the one who is losing. So this is something which should be predicted to avoid it from our side and should be predicted so that we can force it against opponent when required. And again, all this without going for probability tree. Predicting is not much difficult but forcing it at the required time is very difficult and tremendously risky as it might create blunders by making hilarious mistakes. To avoid such mistakes perfect and sure possible prediction through forced moves only is necessary. {Forced moves are the one which the opponent has to play without any other option. Any other move is simply illegal.} We can work in two ways 1) Putting some delay from steal mate situation so as to either avoid from our side or to force if possible. 2) Similar to what we have done so far, we can already somehow predict the building of steal mate situation with the help of changes of the influences of sub-pieces as it is build but one more concern is the overloading of the calculations with this which might lead to other blunders as this concept of steal mate itself is against what we have been trying to do with the opponent. To avoid this we can separately calculate conditions for steal mate and keep them separate without mixing and influencing in regular calculations and consider them in calculations only once its to be avoided from our side or it is possible and beneficial to be forced. This is somewhat similar to the concept of layered threats where we have two separate arrays of calculations and refer to the other only in some particular conditions.

In steal mate not only King but other pieces are also immobilized if there are any and their number is varying.

||

Model Game || || Ending ||