[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
ChessV
. Program for playing numerous Chess variants against your PC.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for that link, I've been able to download it, and look forward to trying it! I guess without being interfaced directly to the ISRCA database, it won't be possible to implement the <a href='http://www.geocities.com/verdrahciretop/src9.html'>Stanley Random Chess</a> 'variant'. But this program certainly seems to have lots of possibilities! Thanks!
📝Greg Strong wrote on Mon, Jan 3, 2005 12:52 AM UTC:<h3>Version 0.7.2 released</h3>
<p>This is primarily a bug-fix release. The disappearing board problem in Windows 95/98/ME has finally been solved. A system crash in Almost Chess has also been fixed. Pawn promotion in Chaturanga has been fixed. Colors preferences will be restored when loading saved games, now, too.</p>
<p><b>features:</b> Double-buffering has been added to the video to eliminate flicker. Also, the color-picker now lets you select any color, not just those from the set.</p>
<p>Enjoy! <a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv'>Download here</a></p>
I've tested the new ChessV on Windows 98 and Windows ME, and I haven't encountered the problem I used to have with the disappearing graphics.
📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jan 4, 2005 07:39 PM UTC:Thank you. It's so good to know that that problem is finally solved. It had to do with the code to re-color the pieces based on your color preference. I never did come to understand the problem - I just found another way to do it that seems to work (and is faster anyway.)
📝Greg Strong wrote on Thu, May 26, 2005 05:31 PM UTC:<p>The link on this page is now out-of-date. For all interested in downloading the current versions, the project's home is located as Sourceforge.net:</p>
<p><a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv/'>http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv/</a></p>
<p>You do not need to check that site to see if there are updates, though. Any updates will be announced here. And, hopefully, a new version will be forthcoming soon.</p>
📝Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Jul 2, 2005 07:17 PM UTC:<h4>Definition: Quiescent Search</h4>
<p>This is a continuation of a discussion from the Angels and Devils page. ChessV, and all commercial Chess programs, use a trick called a quiescent search. I will attempt to describe what this is...</p>
<p>Chess programs search to a given depth, but you <i>cannot</i> just stop and evaluate the position when you reach that depth. Consider this situation: the program searches to a depth of 9, and the 9th move is Queen takes Pawn. If you stop right there and evaluate, you will think you are up by a pawn. However, if you were to look one move further, you would see that the opponent's response is Pawn takes Queen! So, obviously it is bad to look at a position and conclude that you are up by a Pawn, when actually you are down by a Queen! Chess programmers refer to this as the horizon problem, and this is where the quiescent search comes in. The standard move-search considers all legal moves and counter-moves to the given depth. Then, rather than evaluating the position at that point, it enters a quiescent search which continues to search deeper. But the quiescent search only considers moves which are captures, and a good quiescent search only considers captures which win material. In this way, the quiescent search continues to play out all exchanges in progress before evaluating the position. Although the technical details of Zillions aren't publically available, I'm 99% sure that it has no capability of quiescent search. This is why sometimes, after searching deeply, it thinks it is way ahead, but after you make your response, it suddenly thinks it is way down. It has overlooked important moves beyond the search horizon.</p>
<p><b>Note:</b> Consider games with drops, like Shogi and Chessgi. Quiescent search is pointless in these games because there are no quiescent (quiet) positions! You would have to consider not only captures, but also drops, and if you did that, the quiescent search would never end! You can capture and drop forever! This is why ChessV doesn't support Shogi. This is also why Zillions doesn't support quiescent search ... because if it did, it would not be able to play Shogi, Chessgi, Go, etc ...
Professional Shogi programs need to use some really advanced tricks to make it work. What they generally do is this: rather than considering all possible moves, as Chess programs do, they consider only some moves, and they deeper they get, the less and less moves they consider. Which moves they consider is based on game-specific knowledge. For example, in Shogi, dropping a pawn on the square immediately in front of a Bishop is very often good, so that specific move is considered, even when the search is very deep. The problem with this approach is that it require a lot of game-specific knowledge, and tweeks of this kind which work for Shogi would not work for Chessgi (for example.) So, each game becomes a problem all of its own. When adding new games to ChessV, I try to make sure that the intelligence features I'm adding are useful for many games, not just for one game. Or, in other words, I'm picking only the low-hanging fruit.</p>
Thanks for the interesting insights. This seems to make sense for Zillions.
📝Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Jul 17, 2005 01:21 AM UTC:<h3>Version 0.8 Released</h3><p>After a very long delay, the new version is finally out. The source code and windows executables are located at the <a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv'>project's home on sourceforge.net</a>. Enjoy!</p><p><b>New games:</b> <a href='/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSopulentchess'>Opulent Chess</a>, <a href='/contests/10/tencubedchess.html'>TenCubed Chess</a>, <a href='/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSmodernshatranj'>Modern Shatranj</a>, <a href='/contests/10/shatranjkamil64.html'>Shatranj Kamil (64)</a>, and <a href='/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSangelsanddevil'>Angels and Devils</a>.</p><p>This version also includes many bug fixes and performance enhancements. The play is significantly more intelligent than before. It also offers new options in the 'Computer Settings' dialog box. You can now set the size of the Transposition Table and Evaluation Cache (in Megabytes), and you can adjust the margins for Razoring and Futility Pruning. (Sometime soon I need to make a post explaining just what all these things are.)</p>
Hi, Greg. I have tried Chess V v-0.8, and I am not enterely sure, but my first impression is that the A.I. force has diminished a bit, perhaps I have to adjust some of the new parameters, or there is another thing I can´t see now. I fixed the computer time in 5 seconds per move (on Pentium IV 2.1 GHz.), without altering the other parameters. I played Ultima twice, and Opulent once, and I have not had problems to beat the program (this was not usual with the anterior version), but I was somewhat curious about some weak moves the program made. In Ultima, it left a coordinator unproteceted and changed it by a Pawn, in the second game the program was not careful and I immobilized its Immobilizer with one of my Chameleons, and I could take the Immo a few moves after. In Opulent, the program appeared to be a bit confused with pieces values and made a couple of slightly unfavorable changes, but worse: also ruining its position. Have you idea of what is happening?.
When Chess V evaluates positions that are materially equal, how does it choose between them? That's more than just a rhetorical question. We know there are bound to be thousands of positions that are strategically and tactically a dead draw. Whatever distinctions can be found, they must be very subtle. For instance, at the start of the game, what makes 1. Pa2-a6 any better than 1. Pa2-a3? Does Chess V employ at some point a random function to choose between the moves available to it? If Chess V plays against itself, how does it perform if the only thing different is the random seed? Does C as a programming language allow use of different pseudo-random number generators, or are you stuck with the one that comes with your C package? Would two different versions of Chess V perform differently if the only thing distinguishing them were the random seeds inside the C source code? As for numerical values representing the strengths of the pieces, were the figures arrived at through empirical analysis, or by guessing? Empirical analysis implies that different versions of Chess V performed differently when pitted against itself, and the data produced was relied on for newer versions.
📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jul 19, 2005 01:27 AM UTC:<p><b>Roberto</b>: Thanks for the feedback! First, let me make a distinction between Ultima and Opulent (and others.)</p>
<p>Ultima is radically different from the other games ChessV implements, and it is very possible that changes which are 'improvements' for most games, could very well reduce the skill at Ultima slightly. Still, such things can be corrected if I can identify the problem; I've run a few Ultima tests today, but nothing conclusive. What I can do is run tests where various settings are changed so that White 'thinks' differently from Black, and then reverse it, and thus see which settings prove to be superior. I've run a few tests today, with the 5-seconds-per-move you have used, and I seem to get a White win no matter how I configure the sides. Increase it to 10 seconds and I start to see a little differentiation. (My hardware is about the same as yours.) I'll play with it some more, but ultimately, to really do Ultima correctly, more code needs to be written to enhance Ultima, but such code doesn't do anything to improve the play of any other games, so I'm reluctant to put too much time into it.</p><p>Opulent Chess is another story; this is a pretty typical game that should be (generally) as strong or weak as other similar games. However, Opulent Chess has 24 pieces/side and that is more than any game supported by the previous version (the new TenCubed Chess also has 24 pieces/side.) And the more pieces, and the larger the board, the more time required to think to the same depth. I wonder if 5 seconds just isn't enough for it to think deeply enough to compete with you at this game. I suspect compairing it to 5 seconds per move at Grand Chess, for example, will show quite a difference in computer playing skill just because the board is significantly more crowded (and, thus, more captures must be considered in the quiescent search.) I would be curious to see what I-Depth is being reached in the mid-game of your Opulent Chess games. When the computer finishes thinking, and has moved, the I-Depth listed at the top-left of the screen is the depth to which the search has completed. If it's stopping at 3 or 4, for example, in complex positions, that might just not be enough to compete. Opulent and TenCubed are the most processor-intensive games (excluding Ultima) that ChessV supports. </p><p>Also, if you have a save-game file for the Opulent Chess game or the Ultima games you describe, please email or post it and let me know the moves in question, so I can study them. It is also very possible that I have introduced new bugs. This version is very, very, VERY different from the previous one. Thanks again!</p>
📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jul 19, 2005 01:48 AM UTC:<p><b>Matthew</b>: Good questions. Evaluation of a position considers many, many factors. The material value of the pieces is, of course, the most important. And, yes, the material values are reached by educated guesses by myself, and others of the chessvariants.org community. The piece values that ChessV uses for Ultima are those values supplied by George Duke (look at all comments on the 'Ultima' page, and you'll see the relevant discussion.) I'll now mention some other factors in the evaluation of a position.</p>
<p><i>Piece-square-tables</i>: All pieces get a bonus or penalty based on the square they occupy. Squares in the center of the board are better than squares in the corner (except, possibly, for the King.) The values I use for the piece-square-tables are derived by a number of different means depending on the pieces, the game, and how much time I want to put into the particular game. Generally, the values reward positions which (A) control more spaces, and (B) attack center squares. They penalise positions on the home rank of minor pieces which should be developed, thereby encouraging their development.</p>
<p><i>Mobility</i>: Studies on many, many grandmaster-level Chess games show that the player who is winning almost always has more legal moves at his disposal. The is because his pieces are 'more active.' So, some pieces, but not all, are given a bonus based on how mobile they are at present.</p>
<p><i>King Tropism</i>: Some pieces are given bonuses for being close to the enemy king. This is <i>obviously</i> good for the Immobilizer, but also for otheres.</p>
<p><i>Pawn Structure Evaluation</i>: Doesn't apply to Ultima, but for most games, you want to give a bonus for passed pawns, and a penalty for doubled pawns, etc.</p>
<p><i>Ultima-specific factors</i>: All pieces which are immobilized lose 25% of their material value as long as they remain immobilized. The Withdrawer is given a bonus proportional to the most valuable enemy piece that is adjacent, but only if the board has at least one square in the opposite direction for the Withdrawer to move into. The Coordinator gets a bonus proportional to the number of enemy pieces on the same rank or file as the friendly King. Chameleon has several small adjustments.</p>
<p>So, there are so many different factors taken into account that it is very unlikely that any two moves will have exactly the same evaluation. Remember that it is not just evaluating a move, it is evaluating the best sequence of move-counter-move-counter-counter-move, etc. No random number generator is used in any of the search or evaluation functions. Given the same position and the same time to think, ChessV will do the same thing every time. In the unlikely event that two moves have exactly the same evaluation (which is almost impossible because of the way Alpha-Beta pruning works) the move selected is the first move generated (which is arbitrary.)</p>
<p>Hope this helps! I can only suspect that you are under-estimating the difficulty of making an Ultima program. Just writing a good Chess program is hard enough, and this is much harder in many ways. And you are talking about using assembly language! Such a thing, I dare say, is difficult beyond description. But, I admire your courage!</p>
In terms of Ultima/Baroque, any group of 3 or more same-colored pawns situated, together, a single knight's move away from each other, make for a much stronger structure than those that are not. This may mean more to us in an endgame than from the typical starting position, so it should be examined after the variables for fluidity/mobility are arrived at. Although a pawn or pincher can strike against enemies bounded by non-enemy pieces, the relative slowness of a group of pawns (compared to a group of noble piece) means that 'pawn structure' - as such - can be a fruitful thing to look for. In terms of endgame analysis, it may take 1 king + 5 pawns to force checkmate - I'm not sure - but I don't think mating is possible with just 3. The peculiar thing about this, is how the knight's move of traditional chess finds a place for evaluating pawn structures in Ultima/Baroque. It relates to the desirability of distributing same-colored pawns equally across a finite area of rectangularly gridded space.
Unfortunately, I have not saved the games I have played against 0.8, but I think all what happened could be consequence of the deep search up to 9 moves and the 5 seconds per move, considering that Ultima and Opulent are games in which the mobility of pieces and the number of generated moves can be really big, and, additionally, evaluation is not as easy as in other games, in both games there are some pieces with almost the same value, and in both games some positional concepts are not well evaluated by Chess V, simply because it is not so easy to be performed by a program which has not been made 'on purpose' for these games. I suggest limit the search depth IN FUNCTION of the time used, perhaps depth 5 or 6 for 5 seconds per move is good enough in Ultima and Opulent. As for Ultima, Matthew is right, some structures of Pawns are favourable in many cases, but much more when there are not Long-Leapers in the other band scenario... and I suggest add a good penalty for an Immobilizer immobilized by a Chameleon, it is almost always a bad thing for the immobilized team. Some parameters and values may be revised a bit, but in general lines, I think that the game played by Chess V is still stronger to that of Zillions, also in the terms I tested. I´ll try to reproduce similar instances soon, if I have the time, and if there is success, I´ll send to you the saved moves.
📝Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2005 02:02 AM UTC:The setting of I-Depth 9 is just the maximum depth. The way it works is that it searches all moves to a depth of 1, and then, if there's time, to a depth of 2, and, if time, to a depth of 3, etc... So it never hurts to have the Max I-Depth set high. The only reason that setting is there is so that, if you want to do a fixed-depth search, you can set the I-Depth to the depth you want, and set the time limit to something really high. And, strangely enough, searching to a depth of 1, then 2, 3, ..., n is actually faster than going straight to depth n. This technique is called 'Iterative Deepening', and is used by all chess programs. Giving pincer pawns a bonus for being a knights-move away from others might be a good idea. I might give it a try sometime and see how it works.
I just read through some of the comments on here about ChessV and Gothic Chess. Some were not 100% on the mark. First of all, ChessV was given a one-year Gothic Chess license from November 2004 to November 2005. ChessV played in the first, bi-annual Gothic Chess Computer World Championship. You can read more about this on chessville here: http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/ComputerWorldChampionships.htm There was also some discussion about the graphic which was displayed by the ChessV engine. Greg is confusing two issues. I did contact him about something regarding Gothic Chess, but it it was not the item he mentioned. After his license expires and is not renewed, the subsequent versions of ChessV could not contain a Gothic Chess setup, and that is all. I also contacted somebody about an image shown on Wikkepedia under Gothic Chess. It was ORIGINALLY one I had drawn and is widely in use. The one that replaced it was a ChessV board's image of Gothic Chess. Again, I believe the sands of time have led to Greg confusing issues. I never said what was represented by him or others.
When you talk about 5 or 6 seconds per turn, um, what kind of architecture is Chess V being run on? I'd think that space requirements are much more important than time requirements are. I apologize, but I have browsed here and there, and didn't quite notice a definitive statement as to what the exact hardware requirements for Chess V were. I'm naturally referring to Chess V running Ultima/Baroque in an environment all of its own, no phone lines involved, no other programs or applications eating up the available cycles (or semicycles) of execution. Even if it only requires 64 bytes to represent an 8x8 board, it helps to have some way of storing the moves leading up to that board, if you can't store the entire board by itself. Then set aside space for pointers with each pointer taking up 4 bytes so you can refer to an entire 32 bit address space (which is suficient for serious analysis). In attempting to make an Ultima/Baroque program on a 9x9 board, and starting from a single diagram thereof, I use up about 80K of RAM for every few tiers (or plies) worth of scrutiny (the 9x9 version of the game has the apparently innocuous Pusher and Puller pieces in it), so that may not be much memory to you, but my own code is very tight and efficient. When it comes to pruning the mini-max tree, it helps to avoid looking at moves that are undesirably similar. Since some moves are very 'similar' (inasmuch as they do not change the board much from turn to turn), the searches that I subject to the most scrutiny are those where a piece attempts to move as far as it can. For instance, if a Leaper - whether it is a Long Leaper or just a Single Leaper - moves to a place where its overall mobility is maximized, that is going to be the move that deserves the deepest investigation. To prove the point, see what happens when you pit two programs against each other, one of them preferring to examine the moves where the pieces consistently short-sheet themselves, opting for short moves when they have a choice, and those where the pieces usually move as far as they can. For instance, two entirely different personalities are at work when they come up with moves like 1. Pa2-a3, Pa7-a6, 2. Pb2-b3, Pb7-b6, 3. Pc2-c3, Pc7-c6 as opposed to a game like 1. Pa2-a6, Ph7-h3, 2. Pb2-b6, Pg7-g3, 3. Pc2-c6, Pf7-f3. The player that willingly short-sheets himself may be playing it safe, but he certainly isn't playing it adventurously. As for phobias and tropisms, it is a judgment call when a King must willingly go after an Immobilizer (for a coordination attack, as is usual, or a pinch, which is less usual), or an Immobilizer must flee from an Imitator (Chamaeleon). Is 25 percent really the proper amount of diminution to be suffered in calculating out a material score? How do we know that 20% or 33% isn't a better percentage? As I think someone else already pointed out, the piece values tend to change as the board grows emptier and emptier, so a sliding percentage might be better than an absolute percentage. Myself, I don't even use the 'percentage' idea, I just use an absolute plus or minus factor added to the positional score, and attempt to scope out another level or ply, even if it is incomplete, and hope that that is going to be enough.
📝Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2005 10:25 PM UTC:<p>Matthew: I have discussed 5 second per turn because that was the criterion under which Roberto reported that my newest version under-performed the previous version. And his processor, 2.1 GHz Intel, is very close to my own (2.0 GHz Intel.) But, yes, to really to compare apples to apples, one must measure with fixed-depth and not with fixed-time.</p>
<p>Regarding the base-line requirements to be able to run ChessV, I can
honestly say I don't know what the bare minimum would be. But, I would
not recommend running it at all on any machine with less than 256 megabyes
of ram!!! This may sound like a lot, but 256 MB presently costs about $20.
If memory serves me, the Atari ST had one-half of one megabyte of ram
(512KB.) To try to implement something as computing-intensive and
cutting-edge as a computer Ultima program on a computer that is twenty
years old is like trying to climb mount Everest barefoot, with nothing but
a Swiss Army Knife and duct-tape.</p>
<p>I do not wish to discourage you from persuing your goal, as I think all
people should develop software for their own fulfillment whether or not
anyone else cares to run it. Rather, I seek to make you aware (in case
you are not already) that ChessV was written for a machine which is about
4000 times faster, and has over 500 times the memory, and thus, the
programming techniques which I use are not applicable at all to your
situation.</p>
<p>In your post, you describe selective move searching. This is a technique of reducing computing requirements by only considering some of the legal moves. ChessV does not use selective-search at all. This is a technique which was necessary in all computer Chess programs until the late 80's. However, now that computers are fast enough to study all possible moves and still reach a reasonable depth, all modern Chess programs study all moves, and are the better for it. You can reduce the size of your move-tree by skipping moves, but there are always, always situations where you overlook a superior moves to the moves you consider. If you can avoid selective-search, you should. NOTE: even with modern computers, selective search is still required in games like Shogi, which have a high branching-factor, and have no stable (quiescent) positions. ChessV will need to support selective-search if games such as Shogi and Chessgi are ever to be supported.</p>
I've already got a handful of those 256 meg thumb-drives, too, and I love the direction technology is taking them. Flashram is the wave of the future. Unfortunately, I have had more than my share of bad luck with Intel systems, and the rate at which my last few PC compatibles crashed makes me view the benchmarks and forecasts they've come up with, with suspicion. (It is rumored that thumbdrives rarely last more than a year from the time you first buy them, and put them to use, hot swaps and all.) Nobody is forcing you to boot up an ST emulator just to try out my code, just bear in mind that not everybody has a computer that you consider state of the art. As for generating a mini-max tree, how deep should you go before you start pruning? I know you recommend a 9 ply search (just under 5 full moves), and I have nothing against that. In an endgame consisting of four or five pieces, it sounds perfectly reasonable to do a 30 or 40 ply search - the space required is far less than at start, you just have to look into the possibility that you are revisiting a board that you've already generated somewhere higher up (earlier) in the tree - maybe with the tempos swapped - but you can save a ton of space that way. Say, from the sample Ultima games here at www.chessvariants.org, I wasn't entirely sure why the players were holding back and playing 1. Pg2-g4 or 1. Pf2-f4 (recounting from memory, I may be wrong, they were only seizing a couple of squares of territory) instead of pushing the pawns up to the limit possible, like 1. Pf2-f6 or 1. Pg2-g6 and let them bite the dust if that's what it's cracked up to be. As principles go, is it really that dangerous to hog space - even throw pawns away - for the sake of reaching a game that is that much more open? In any case, whether the Leaper is capable of single or multi-leaps, losing a Leaper is going to be the most momentous occasion in the game.
📝Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2005 05:48 PM UTC:Version 0.81 Released
An important update, this has several bug-fixes and performance enhancements to correct problems reported in version 0.8. This version should be significantly smarter about how it plays.
This version also adds support for Fergus Duniho's Eurasian Chess. NOTE: this is by far the most computing-intensive game added yet, not just because of the number of pieces, but more importantly because of the cannon-movers. With cannon-movers on the board, it is much harder to determine which captures are winning captures, and thus many, many more moves must be examined in the quiescent-search. Any less than 10-15 seconds per move and it is not likely to play very well.
Eurasian seems nice. Yes, 15-20 sec., at least, are needed... ULTIMA detail, revise, please: I have played a brief test (5 sec. per move), and I could not capture an immobilized King with a Chameleon. I have to make more tests to see what happened, I have not saved the first game test. I think you also need 15-20 sec. per move in Ultima for better play.
I love this chess program but there are dozens of bugs. The worst ones are the crashing of the program itself and loading saved games cause the computer's pieces to be invisable(can show a screenshot) So I never get a chance to play to the end :(
📝Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Aug 15, 2006 12:13 PM UTC:Thank you for the feedback. I have been working hard on a new version and it should be out very soon. It has been over a year since the last version because I've been trying to test everything throughly. I'll post here when version 0.9 is released.
📝Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Aug 27, 2006 11:04 PM UTC:Version 0.9 Released
For those who don't know, ChessV is a freeware, open-source program for playing Chess variants. It has been over a year since the last release, and this is a major upgrade. This version has support for over 50 variants, and allows users to add in their own variants! Of course, it also fixes numerous bugs.
New games: Support added for Great Shatranj, Odin's Rune Chess, Chess 480, Cagilostro's Chess, Embassy Chess, Emperor's Game, Janus Kamil Chess, Ladorean Chess, Univers Chess, Schoolbook Chess, Modern Kamil, Roman Chess, Royal Court, and Shatranj Kamil.
New features: It is now possible to design your own variants (within limits.) This ability is different that that of Zillions, however, in that you don't program an entire game from scratch. Rather, you derive your game from one of the built-in games, and specify only how it differs. This makes it fairly easy to add support for new games, but it is limited. It is not anywhere near as flexible as Zillions. On the upside, however, ChessV will play any game that it allows you to make with a very high level of skill. See the file extensability.doc for info on how to add new variants. Other new features include the ability to use textures for squares instead of only solid colors. Several marble textures are included.
Download: Download this program from the project's home on sourceforge.net here. You only need to download the main file (ChessV_0_9.zip), not the source code unless it interests you. There is no setup program - just unzip and run. If you have an old version of ChessV already, just unzip this on top of the existing versions.
Please report any bugs you encounter. You may post them here, or email them to me (you can get my e-mail from the chessvariants.org member's index.)
I'm very very happy to see this new release! I was worried that ChessV was abandoned (the last ChessV public release had a bug that made it not play chess as well as it could). This is a great program; I'm glad it supports my game (Schoolbook) since playing Zillions has been getting old.
If you're interested, I can help by having a command-line version that can compile uisng the standard Gnu/UNIX toolchain--it would be nice to compile this program on something besides Windows + MSVC. I think that would encourage more developers (I'm a Linux developer who makes Windows ports with MingW32).
Again, thanks for the great work Greg. Good to see you back--I missed you!
- Sam
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.