Active Topics

 



Notices


Reply
Thread Tools
jukey's Avatar
Posts: 246 | Thanked: 204 times | Joined on Jun 2007 @ Potsdam (Germany)
#171
A few days ago I was on a train together with a college and we played some games using Miniature.

First of all: It was possible and we had no crash and don't closed the game accidentally. We also don't saw problems in the game logic itself but we don't had a very accurate view (the goal was just playing!).

The board itself looks nice and the whole application feels very good since it is running in full screen mode.

Other things worth mentioning:
  • In the 3 or 4 games we never used the "back" button
  • Sometimes we had to press the "play" button several times. It was hard to decide what seems to be the reason: I think on the one hand the button is to small but on the other hand the game logic sometimes seems to need some time until the requested move was done.
  • Sometimes we felt it a little bit to much to press play after each move but I think I we need some more impressions to decide if it is a good or not so good idea.

Anyway, thank you very much Michael for bring forward the development. The thanks button in this forum is way too small! I also want to thank all the other contributors. I can't wait for my first P2P match!

Ciao jukey
__________________
-> Join the SailfishOS Meetup Berlin - every first Monday a month <-

Me on twitter
 

The Following User Says Thank You to jukey For This Useful Post:
Posts: 7 | Thanked: 8 times | Joined on Mar 2010
#172
Originally Posted by jukey View Post
[*]Sometimes we had to press the "play" button several times. It was hard to decide what seems to be the reason: I think on the one hand the button is to small but on the other hand the game logic sometimes seems to need some time until the requested move was done.[*]Sometimes we felt it a little bit to much to press play after each move but I think I we need some more impressions to decide if it is a good or not so good idea.[/LIST]Ciao jukey
Same feedback as far as i'm concerned.
Personnaly, I don't like to press "play". For me, it's like grab a piece, move it on a square and wait...to see if i play this move or not. It's not the rules (nor beauty) of the game. In fact, not realistic. But it's IMO.

All in all, miniature is very very cool, and eye candy. Bravo!
Thanks for this beautiful job!

Regards
 

The Following User Says Thank You to mitweeeeh For This Useful Post:
Posts: 7 | Thanked: 8 times | Joined on Mar 2010
#173
Hi,
i wanted a pgn viewer for my N900 and i found Chessmonk, by Kanishou. I would very happy if i could work my openings with.

Is there any package for it? Nor sources? I posted on the old thread but i've no answer. The dev said it was functionnal, so?

Thanks a lot.
 
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,088 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#174
The other day we had a transatlantic flight and at some point we decided to play some Miniature chess.

Originally Posted by jukey View Post
  • In the 3 or 4 games we never used the "back" button
  • Sometimes we had to press the "play" button several times. It was hard to decide what seems to be the reason: I think on the one hand the button is to small but on the other hand the game logic sometimes seems to need some time until the requested move was done.
  • Sometimes we felt it a little bit to much to press play after each move but I think I we need some more impressions to decide if it is a good or not so good idea.
True about not using the Back button. Maybe we can remove it and bring it back only when we have a setup to analyze games.

True about Play button sometimes not very responsive. No pattern found. Could be bigger and/or perhaps have a bigger clickable area.

Until now I think there has been always a situation in every game when a click when to the wrong square, and thanks to the Play button confirmation the correction could be made. Also novice players use it as a help to think of the next move, which I find it fine if your opponent is fine with this. I'm for keeping it.

PS: ref Bug 8141 we didn't have problems with the logics of the pieces but (coincidentally?) we didn't move the King much.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post:
Posts: 5,795 | Thanked: 3,151 times | Joined on Feb 2007 @ Agoura Hills Calif
#175
I tried Miniature just now and it was almost usable. The lower right part of the screen said 42. rc1 or something similar. I had a hard time figuring out how to complete a move. Otherwise it was promising, though not yet approaching scid or eboard or most chess software I know about. It does have a pretty board.
 
Posts: 5,795 | Thanked: 3,151 times | Joined on Feb 2007 @ Agoura Hills Calif
#176
As far as I know, no one has put together a usable adaptation of working chess programs such as Eboard or Scid suitable for the N900, correct? (Unless you install Easy Debian, which I can't use at the moment for excellent technical reasons beyond my control (see the Mugen battery thread).
 
Posts: 7 | Thanked: 8 times | Joined on Mar 2010
#177
Originally Posted by mitweeeeh View Post
Hi,
i wanted a pgn viewer for my N900 and i found Chessmonk, by Kanishou. I would very happy if i could work my openings with.

Is there any package for it? Nor sources? I posted on the old thread but i've no answer. The dev said it was functionnal, so?

Thanks a lot.
I quote myself. Any possibility to contact the author?

Thanks
 
Posts: 148 | Thanked: 199 times | Joined on Nov 2009
#178
Originally Posted by geneven View Post
... Scid ...
Interfacing with Scid is very high on my wish list. The idea is to make a minimal (but useful!) Miniature UI extension on top of Scid (but this is nevertheless *hard*). Anyone who wants to start with this, or has ideas on how to approach this (read: familar with Scid codebase, willing to contact Scid devs, Scid power user, etc) can help to make this happen!

In other news: 0.8.1-1 is out, mostly a cleanup release with new bugs =p I fear it might not install properly without PR1.2, sorry
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mikhas For This Useful Post:
Posts: 148 | Thanked: 199 times | Joined on Nov 2009
#179
Originally Posted by mitweeeeh View Post
I quote myself. Any possibility to contact the author?

Thanks
Yeah, I'll ask him - he's a colleague of mine, after all
 

The Following User Says Thank You to mikhas For This Useful Post:
jukey's Avatar
Posts: 246 | Thanked: 204 times | Joined on Jun 2007 @ Potsdam (Germany)
#180
Hi,

mikhas (thank you very much!) has created a RFC for the way how P2P functionality could be implemented:

Protocol draft for Miniature-P2P
================================

We will assume that P1 and P2 have already found each other and are able to
chat ("match nick" in FICS).


A Chat
======

* "tell [nick|#channel] msg"
Why nick and #channel? Because later we migt want observers in P2P (so
there'd be a channel #obs, because you dont want the players so see the chat
of kibitzs).

* http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/tell.html

* This command is the *only* one that will work in every situation, without
exception. It does not change the current game state.


B Game mode negotiation
=======================

* Both of the players can now propose a game mode, similar to
http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/seek.html

* We can skip the parameters we dont support yet, so we need at least be able
to send/parse this:

"seek [time inc] [rated|unrated] [white|black]"

* Examples:
"seek 5 0 r w": 5 minutes, no incr, rated, seeker wants white,
"seek 5 0 rated white": same as above,
"seek 2 10 u b": 2 minutes, 10s incr, unrated, seeker wants black

* When the other player receives a seek, he can either accept the offer or
ignore it. Both players could propose game modes sending as many seeks as
they want, and at any time! But that would be silly in our case, so let's
simplify this dramatically:

1 host player (P1) sends seek,
A client player (P2) accepts seek: send "play" → 2
B P2 ignores seek: P2 can now send a seek
A P1 accepts seek: send "play" → 2
B P1 ignores seek: → 1
2 game starts (http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/play.html)


C Moves
=======

* In FICS, once it is your turn, it is sufficient to enter "e2-e4" to move your
pawn, for example.

* FICS sends the new position to each player, obviously this simplifies sync
issues. So I think we should send sth like "move e2-e4; fen
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4/P/3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b". The FEN position string
can be seen as checksum for the move, so we are able to always detect sync
issues. In case of an sync issue, the FEN position *overrides* the move, and
the error is logged (maybe even send "sync error" back to sender, so both
peers are aware). How to handle that beyond logging the error, I do not know.
Let's see if it really happens first. The more general approach is to have
the receiving peer always confirm a move with a checksum, based on the
position info it was able to compute, and the sending peer then compares this
checksum, and complains.

* The peers compute the status (check, checkmate, ...) themselves, based on the
position info send

* Move requests that are sent when it is not the player's turn should
be silently discarded.


D Takeback
==========
* FICS is a bit funny here, showing its age wrt verbose & racy protocol
implementation "takeback 2 - accept - withdraw", note how accept and withdraw
can happen at the same time.
http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/takeback.html

* Again, let's simplify:
"takeback n", request to take back n moves, answered by "takeback n" (the
same n) to accept. Now it doesn't even matter who sends it first.
1 P1 sends "takeback n",
A P2 accepts: send "takeback n" → 2
B P2 declines: nothing happens → 3.
2 N half-moves are taken back.
3 P2 or P1 sends his next move (notice how this can clash with a "takeback n"
confirmation in case it was P1's turn, in which case the takeback
confirmation should win, as P2 is free to ignore P1's move after confirming
the takeback).

* Same as with moves, we send: "takeback n; fen current/fen/pos/ w|b", so that
the fen position is the one to be expected after takeback n would be
performed (assuming we go without the general approach of sending checksums
after every position change).

* A takeback request can be simply ignored without further actions.


E Draw
======
* http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/draw.html

* We don't support claiming a draw yet, but that will be easy to implement:
before the other peer gets chance to say ok, "draw", we query the logic
analyzer, which is entitled to enforce a technical "draw".

* Otherwise, same as in takeback, without position sending:
1 P1 sends "draw",
A P2 accepts: send "draw" → 2
B P2 declines: nothing happens → 3.
2 Game ends in draw.
3 P1 sends his next move (P2 is not allowed to demand a draw if it is not his
turn, also, same conflict resolution as in takeback: draw confirmation wins
over P1's move, and P2 is free to ignore the move).


F Resign
========
* http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/resign.html

* Players can resign at any time, I guess? No confirmation by other player
needed, game ends.


G Adjourn
=========
* http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/adjourn.html

* I like the 2 cases presented on FICS, esp. the courtesy adjourn which handles
time-outs gracefully.

* Similar to draw and takeback:
1 P1 ran out of time, unresponsive
A P2 sends "adjourn" → 3
(B P2 claims the win, not important yet for our case)
2 P1 sends "adjourn"
A P2 accepts: send "adjourn" → 3
B P2 declines: nothing happens
3 Game is adjourned, both sides save the current position locally, game ends.
Source: https://garage.maemo.org/pipermail/c...il/000133.html

Please feel free to comment the draft or to ask questions.
__________________
-> Join the SailfishOS Meetup Berlin - every first Monday a month <-

Me on twitter
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jukey For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
chess, fremantle, miniature


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:00.