Currently the Chesstempo PGN viewer is the best free online PGN viewer that I know of, but it's not perfect. For some reason it makes the first move by default and I don't know how to turn it off. I added a “null move” at the start, but You have to avoid “taking this move back” because the PGN viewer “gets confused” then and messes up sides. I also don't know how to make the move list window smaller, but there is “a vertical height resize handle” at the bottom, so you can make it smaller (or larger) yourself.
I have to say that chess is not about intelligence. What really counts is chess experience.
The below chess endgame is taken from one of my games. My opponent had just played “38...Rd4” offering a rook exchange. Calculating this position all the way to mate is impossible, but it was enough for me that I knew how to play with a queen against a pawn on the 7th rank. And the variation forcing such an endgame was possible to calculate.
Click arrows to replay the moves on the board.
[StartPly "0"]
[FEN "8/p7/1p2k3/2pp4/3r4/4N1PK/PP1R4/8 b - - 0 1"] 0...-- 1.Rxd4 cxd4 2.Nd1 Kf5 3.Kh4 Ke4 4.g4 Kd3 5.g5 Kd2 6.g6 Kxd1 7.g7 d3 8.g8=Q Kc2 9.Qxd5 d2 10.Qb3+ Kc1 11.Qc3+ Kd1 12.Kg3 Ke2 13.Qc2 Ke1 14.Qe4+ Kf1 15.Qd3+ Ke1 16.Qe3+ Kd1 17.Kf2 Kc2 18.Qe2 Kc1 19.Qc4+ Kxb2 20.Qd3 Kc1 21.Ke2 1-0
It was all about experience – I knew such an endgame was winning and I remembered the key moves in this kind of endgame.
I think that even a very intelligent person would not be able to find such a combination without any chess experience. Of course there were other ways to win this endgame, but I was sure of success, so I didn’t care for other solutions.
FreeCell is by far the best solitaire I have ever played. All cards are visible, but you still have to think! There are hardly any impossible deals, but there are many deals that can be won only by going through a very narrow path.
There is one thing that some people are not aware of – there is a free column multiplier that allows you to move much more cards than without any free column. Without any free column you can move from 1 to 5 cards, depending on the number of free cells. With 1 free column you can move from 2 to 10 cards!
Example 1 – 1 free cell and 1 free column:
5,4,3,2
2 up
3 to the free column
2 on 3
4 up
5 on 6
4 on 5
2 up
3 on 4
2 on 3
FOUR cards moved with only 1 free cell and 1 free column!
Example 2 – 2 free cells and 1 free column:
7,6,5,4,3,2
2 up
3 up
4 to the free column
3 on 4
2 on 3
5 up
6 up
7 on 8
6 on 7
5 on 6
2 up
3 up
4 on 5
3 on 4
2 on 3
SIX cards moved with 2 free cells and 1 free column!
EIGHT cards moved with 3 free cells and 1 free column!
TEN cards moved with 4 free cells and 1 free column!
Below there is a fantastic example of a deal that isn't obvious and requires lots of ordering. The number of the deal is very easy to remember: 111. Please notice that I showed you on two different occasions that the same move was not possible with 2 free cells, but was possible with 1 free cell and 1 free column!
As you can see when almost everything is in order then freeing the last blocked low card ends the game automatically! I LOVE this game!
CRRCSim = Charles River Radio Controllers Simulator
Only 5 days ago I downloaded this little free game and it instantly catapulted to the top of my favourite games. I was searching for a free plane simulator and I found a site that mentioned this game. The file that I downloaded is only 8.5 MB and it's named:
CRRCsim-Win32-0.9.13
This little free game can save you lots of money in the real life – you can crash as many radio controlled planes on your computer as needed to learn how to fly AND how to land such a plane before buying such a plane in the real life. The most helpful thing is that you can see your plane zoomed in, either in a corner of the screen OR in the middle of the screen. Yes, you can zoom in on the “proper” plane too!
In the Youtube descriptions of my gameplay movies there are some detailed remarks. Please read them.
1. Example for the options Model Window and Autozoom (recorded with a mouse)
2. Example for no Model Window and no Autozoom with mouse cursor visible.
Please, notice that without the Autozoom it is much harder to fly and land a plane simply because it is much smaller. Exactly like in the real life.
I recorded some gameplay movies while playing with a mouse, but then I bought a cheap gamepad. Flying with a gamepad is MUCH easier than flying with a mouse, mostly because a stick in the gamepad returns to a neutral position automatically after you let it go, while the mouse cursor HAS to be moved to the center of the screen all by yourself.
3. Example for playing with a gamepad.
I use the right stick like a real plane control stick (elevator and aileron) and to the left stick I assigned only rudder. Increase throttle and decrease throttle are assigned to front left-side gamepad buttons (not to the left stick), because it's annoying to constantly hold the left stick up to have maximum throttle.
In the movie above I used rudder only on the ground (to make the plane turn after landing) because I wanted the gameplay movie to be comparable to the ones I made while flying with a mouse – you can see that flying with a gamepad is still MUCH easier even without using the rudder.
4. Example for using rudder with a gamepad.
In the movie above I used rudder also in the air to show you how much more fun it is to use it (at all, not only with a gamepad). It can be used also while playing with a mouse + keyboard, but I “discovered” this fact only after buying a gamepad. And after realising how important the rudder is for flying a plane overall.
Rudder makes your plane turn with only slight tilt of the wings, unless you use it for too long. It's very good at low speeds to slightly correct the landing path, BUT it can be also used in some fantastic aerobatic manoeuvres!
In the movie above I used the rudder to perform a manoeuvre that is a little similar to the aerobatic manoeuvre called “wingover”. I did it as a way to make an approach to landing, but my plane ended up on a wrong path, so I used the rudder AGAIN to correct the landing path. To make my flight a little random I did (as always) a roll and a loop first and only then I did the “approach manoeuvre”:
0. Fly away from the landing place.
1. Go straight up and lower the throttle.
2. Turn and hold the rudder to a side.
3. Release the rudder and level the plane.
This way your plane ends up flying more or less in the opposite direction than when the manoeuvre was started, so it ends up flying more or less towards the landing place. Usually you have to make some corrections of the flight path, but for this purpose you can use the rudder again!
Please notice that by accident you can perform a manoeuvre that is a little similar to the aerobatic manoeuvre called “hammerhead” or “stall turn”. It's like a wingover, but executed “too late”, so the plane “slides back” while turning to a side.
5. Example for easy approach to landing (recorded with a mouse).
The hardest thing for me is the approach to landing. I learned how to do it while turning sharply but there is actually another way: easy and cool at the same time! It's a little similar to the aerobatic manoeuvre called “reverse half Cuban 8” (terrifying name, really), but the way I execute it it's quite easy. To make my flight a little random I did (as always) a roll and a loop first and only then I did the “approach manoeuvre”:
0. Fly away from the landing place.
1. Gain altitude while flying at the angle of around 45 degrees.
2. Lower the throttle a little while gaining altitude.
3. Make a half roll to make the plane fly upside-down.
4. Make a half loop towards the ground.
5. Lose altitude and lower the throttle a little more.
This way your plane ends up flying in the opposite direction than when the manoeuvre was started, so it ends up flying towards the landing place. All you have to do is to make small corrections of the flight path and land – there is no need to do ANY sharp turns (the half roll was not a turn). It's quite easy even with a mouse!
6. Example for easy approach to landing (recorded with a gamepad).
In the movie above I used rudder only on the ground (to make the plane turn after landing) because I wanted the gameplay movie to be comparable to the ones I made while flying with a mouse – you can see that flying with a gamepad is still MUCH easier even without using the rudder.
7. Example for saving a replay and launching it as a “robot” (recorded with a mouse).
In this fun little game you can save a kind of replay that can be launched during another flight as a separate plane. However there are some things to remember:
1. After you “save” a replay you have to reset your plane for the replay to be visible. Before the reset the replay is stored as a kind of temporary game file (under a different name) that is not visible in-game. After you reset your plane (or leave the game) the temporary file is changed into a “proper” file with the name you entered. This file is visible in-game.
2. After the replay is loaded (as a “robot”) sometimes there is a bug and the other plane doesn't appear or it appears reversed. You have to “remove all robots” and load the replay again.
3. Autozoom makes it hard to see both planes, so it has to be turned off.
4. You can load more replays at the same time (I loaded 6 replays that I saved after I had recorded my earlier gameplay movies). After you reset your plane all “robots” are also reset.
(Originally posted on Saturday, 2 March 2019; updated significantly on 7 April 2019)
The game Billiard Blitz Snooker Star is by far my favourite computer snooker game. The gameplay mechanics are perfect to me – you don't have to practice for years (like a real snooker player) to be able to pot the balls consistently, but you do have to practice how to control the white ball to make the next shot easier.
Well, in some cases it is very hard to even pot a ball, because when you are very far from the ball the “helping lines” are simply too short. Moreover the helping lines show only the movements of the white ball and the ball that will be hit by the white ball FIRST – any subsequent movements of other balls are NOT shown even when they are very close to the white ball. Perfect!
After some practice I am now able to make a maximum break almost at will. Well, in this game the maximum break is “only” 107 points, because in the triangle of red balls there is one row less (there are 5 red balls less), but achieving the 107 max is still very cool – you still have to pot every red ball together with the black ball.
Below there is a GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) file of my most recent maximum break in this game. After the update this max is against Odo – the best computer opponent in this game. Beating him is very rewarding because you literally have one shot to do it. When you start a frame you have to play a very good safe shot to have any chance at all (any chance that he will miss his shot). When he himself starts a frame he usually leaves one open red ball and one other loose red ball that is impossible to pot right away. It's all you've got to make a winning break to win the frame. And the rest of the triangle of red balls is usually almost intact, so you have to hit it with the white ball in a thoughtful way.
The GIF file shows only my own shots AND the shots are shown BEFORE I decided about the strength of the shots. It explains why the white ball sometimes travels in a slightly different path.
Below there is another GIF file of a maximum break against Odo – it shows that in this game you can maintain a break in positions that are hopeless in real world. After I hit the triangle of red balls with the white ball I had no easy red ball to pot. I had to make a combination shot (combo) – I hit one red ball with the white ball and it hit another red ball, but I couldn't see the path of the second red ball. My attempt was successful, but to continue the maximum break I had to make a kick shot on my next shot – I hit the white ball against the cushion first and only then it hit the black ball. The helping lines are long enough to handle such positions with ease.
As you can see I use a video/flash player to run this game, but you can play it directly online on many Internet sites.
On a side note, I would like to point out that this game actually shows that the AI (artificial intelligence) in every computer games HAS to be “dumbed down”. The best computer opponents in this game play like magicians – they regularly hit a bunch of red balls and one of them miraculously goes into a pocket, often after several cannons with other balls. It is impossible for a human player to make even one such shot, but the ultimate computer player knows everything the game designers know, so the ultimate AI should be able to play PERFECTLY on every shot. Beating such an opponent would be impossible, which would make every game unplayable.
Here's another GIF file that shows the last shots of 19 maxes against different opponents in this game.
(Originally posted on Sunday, 25 April 2021)
Change Type is the best platform game I have ever played!
You can change types of two different object, which can be seen at the top of the screen (it's partially obstructed by the “BANDICAM recording overlay”). The cool thing is that you often HAVE to cancel the change while being in mid-air! FANTASTIC game!!!
Since I wrote the post “My opinion about chess” my results have been awesome: 7 wins, 5 draws and only 1 loss. Interesting. Anyway, below there are two examples that show the beauty of chess. The first example is just a position from one of my games.
I was playing black, so flip the board upside-down. Black to play and win:
White has just played 33.Qg6, preventing me from taking the pawn at g3. I played 33...Qxg6 because I was very short on time and I wanted to “simplify the position”. However the chess engine Stockfish 9 (one of the best chess engines ever created) shows that it was a huge blunder and that there was a much better move for black. There were 3 winning moves, but one was clearly the best. Can you find it? It's actually pretty “obvious”, but I missed it in the game. The beauty of chess.
Here's the best continuation:
The second example is a whole game that lasted for 101 moves (202 single moves). It was a blitz game, but with time increment – the clock was set as 3 minutes + 5 seconds per move and it lasted 17 minutes overall!
As always I played a very quiet and safe opening (the London System – the “boring system” – the “old man’s system”). My opponent didn't make any clear blunders (clear for chess amateurs) and he (or she) outplayed me in the middle game because I ended up being a pawn down. My opponent was trying very hard to win the endgame and in fact I made some blunders, but he missed the winning continuations. It was a hard fight, but I managed to get to a basic pawn endgame that I knew was drawn. I just kept blocking his pawn with my king whenever I could or placed my king opposite his king (which is called “taking the opposition”). The crucial rule however is to move your king vertically down when you have to move your king away from the pawn. I was playing white:
Wasn't this very long hard fight beautiful? Sure it was, but only because of the stalemate rule. If a stalemate wasn't a draw then the game wouldn't have lasted 101 moves, but instead I would have resigned already after move 36! Such a game wouldn't be beautiful at all.
Many people say that a stalemate should be a win for the side that made the last move, but I strongly disagree with such opinions.
“If you play a lot of different strategy games, you've probably often found yourself in a position where the game you are playing is already over, yet you are compelled to go through the motions until the game is actually complete. It's really one of the toughest challenges you face when designing a strategy game. How does one define the win conditions so that the game ends at the appropriate time, before the game outstays its welcome?
Chess has what I think it a pretty good answer to this problem. It gives the player that is down an incentive to fight to the very end by offering them a possibility of forcing a draw. It's a possibility that infuses the endgame meaning of its own, rather than simply being the middle game trailing off into boredom. While it's not unreasonable to assert that stalemates being a draw is somewhat unintuitive, I disagree that it is bad game design. On the contrary, its pretty brilliant solution that uses the game mechanics that are already there to make the game engaging from start to finish. Very elegant design.”
A game of chess is often compared to an old-time battle or an old-time war (I prefer the second comparison), so we can think about stalemate in a similar way.
Looking at the history of warfare – the crucial observations about typical old-time battles and wars:
1. Winning a single battle and/or gaining a material advantage didn't usually decide the outcome of a whole war.
2. Old-time battles didn't usually end with a total destruction of an entire army and the losing side managed to covered a retreat of their king (or military leader) to a safe place.
3. To kill or capture a king you had to usually conquer a fortress, not to win a single battle. A small army hadn't been usually able to conquer a capital city with high walls.
4. Some wars/sieges couldn't be won even with a clear advantage of the attacking side – the outnumbered defenders were so stubborn and/or so cunning that the attacking side finally gave up trying to win or made a costly mistake that resulted in a miraculous change of situation.
5. Sometimes even a successful war ended in a peace treaty that gave winners hardly anything!
A stalemate is a perfect analogy to each of the five kinds of historical cases described above. Moreover without a stalemate there would be no endgame finesse at all!
Imagine what would happen without a stalemate – the side with the advantage of a pawn would FORCE a trade of all the remaining pawns and pieces (you can't hide your army without letting your king die) and then would FORCE a stalemate with a lone pawn! Almost every material advantage would be winning! How strange would that be?!
By the way, you can download Stockfish 9 for free here (it's an open source chess engine): https://stockfishchess.org/
To use this chess engine you have to launch it in a GUI program (GUI = Graphical User Interface). Personally I use the program SCID 4.2.2., but there are several newer versions of this program AND there are also many other GUI programs. The most important thing to me is the fact that SCID 4.2.2. can annotate a whole game AND you can then replay all the correct variations on the screen. That's enough for me. The “Annotate ...” button shows up only after you launch a particular chess engine (at the bottom of the window):
The game with the first position in the present post made me realize that the SCID 4.2.2. analysis “forgets” about blunders that happen right before the end of the game. After I played 33...Qxg6 my opponent either abandoned the game on purpose or lost the Internet connection, because the game ended right there (after 1 minute of “recovery time” used on the website where I play online chess – “kurnik.pl”, which is actually the same site as “playok.com”). The SCID 4.2.2. analysis at the end of the game showed only the variation AFTER the final move (+6.27 advantage for white), even though it should also report a huge blunder on my side (the score after move 32 was -8.28 advantage for black):
I had noticed that there is something wrong with the analysis and I launched the chess engine again to see what happened. Interestingly if you add just one half-move (34.Bxg6) the annotations are better (they point out the blunder by black), but still not perfect (they don't point out an additional blunder by white). Move-by-move analysis shows that white should have played 33.Rxh5 (-8.67), instead of 33.Qg6 (-18.85). I have never seen such holes in the SCID annotations before, but such flaws are easy to notice anyway:
As you can see in blitz chess games played by amateurs anything can happen – in a span of just 3 moves (precisely 5 half-moves) the position changed from a draw to a win for black, then to an even bigger win for black and then to a win for white. Blunder after blunder after blunder. The beauty of chess.
Today I played a cool chess game. Everything went my way, but I had to keep calm and be very careful – my opponent's rating was higher than mine (1438 vs. 1365) and he had played more game online than me (11125 vs. 8103), so he (or she) was definitely not a pushover.
This time I was a move behind (I was playing black), so I had to deal with an opening move played by white. My opponent started with 1.e4 and I answered with the Caro-Kann Defence (1...c6 and 2...d5). I ALWAYS defend this way against 1.e4 because I don't have time to study opening theory and the Caro-Kann Defence comes very naturally.
The fun started after I played 6...Nh6! This move is not perfect, but it has one big advantage – it throws all the opening theory of my opponents into a trash bin. My opponent allowed me to play 7...Qh4+ and to force the exchange of Queens already on the move 10. Many chess amateurs hate to play without queens (probably because they play many short games without any time increment) and my opponent was probably rattled by the way this game started. Several moves later he lost an exchange (he lost a rook for my knight), but I had to make 26 more moves before he resigned.
The most important thing to me is the way I used my advantage – I was very calm and careful. After I created a couple of passed pawns on the queen-side I exchanged my knight for a knight and then I moved my rook to the king-side. After creating two passed pawns there I gave back the exchange (I “sacrificed” my rook for a knight) and I started pushing a passed pawn on the queen-side. My opponent resigned then. Cool game.
I was playing black, so switched the board upside-down.
A couple of days ago I played a game where I missed a cool chess tactic. If I had found it I would be really proud of myself.
In the position above black has just played ...f2+ and I had to do something about this check. In fact I had a big advantage, but I failed to find a way to convert it and I lost the game. Can you see the best continuation for white – the way to get rid of most complications?
(Originally posted on Friday, 18 October 2019; updated on Sunday, 25 April 2021)
UPDATE: Test Subject Green was "beaten" by Change Type as the best platform game I have ever played, but I leave the original version of the present post unchanged.
Test Subject Green is the best platform game I have ever played. It’s a free online flash game that is very enjoyable on several different layers. https://www.kongregate.com/games/nitrome/test-subject-green
1. Great puzzles.
Many puzzles are based on using numerous portals in order to achieve your goal. The goal is actually separated into two stages – first, you have to get to a key-card and then you have to get to the “exit”. Some portals can be even moving themselves, which adds a new dimension to the puzzles.
2. Good timing.
Some puzzles require good timing of your actions, which is very much to my liking. Fortunately there is always some time for error and this is why I wrote “good timing” instead of “perfect timing”. Some portals and/or “stairs” can be switched on and off (by shooting at the switch with your gun), but you have to usually time your jumps/movements with the hit on the switch. Cool!
3. Cool “character”.
You are a tiny lab experiment enzyme (named Blue) that is injected into a proto-suit at the start of every level. You can actually see a person (who is very big when compared to you) watching you from the outside of the test chamber. Watching and making notes about your actions. The “exit” at the end of every level is actually a food pill. The key-card unlocks the pill capsule.
4. Self-conceited evil character.
There is actually a plot in this game! In the beginning you are being tested by an old professor, but after several levels you get kidnapped by an evil character who is self-conceited. Some of his notes were quite hilarious to me:
Well, the game developers themselves can be very proud of their ideas used in this great game and I suspect that they put such remarks into the notes of the evil character on purpose, not to be accused of bragging themselves. Cool idea on its own.
5. Good gameplay mechanics.
As any platform game Test Subject Green requires lots of jumping. Fortunately the jumping is not too hard, but not too easy either. Interestingly, you can’t move while crouching, which is quite logical – movements in any proto-suit should be somewhat limited by definition.
6. A little bit of fighting.
There are some enemies in this game, but their numbers and abilities are not overwhelming, so the fighting is only an addition, not the main part of the gameplay. However, there is one kind of enemy that is very cool – “mimic” does everything you do after it detects you, but it never stands still. You can't kill it “upfront”, but you can do it while it is changing or while it is in the air (while it is falling or jumping). Well, “mimic” actually stands still while it is shooting (mimicing your own shooting). This is also an easy way to make “mimic” turn his back to you (you can kill it then too) because it shoots in the same direction as you did a moment before.
7. Respawn points.
You can die as many times as you need to beat a level. You respawn either at the starting point or at the respawn point (after reaching it first). More importantly when you die the enemies don’t respawn with you. It makes the fighting even easier and/or less tedious. Well, some enemies do respawn, even when you don’t die yourself, but it is happens rarely and it never gets tedious.
8. You can kill yourself.
The first time I killed myself was a mix of surprise and appreciation to the game developers. “Obvious twist” that I was not prepared for.
9. Mirrors reflect also your shots.
Well, this is a tip to you. I got stuck on the level 8 jest because I didn’t know about it. This gameplay mechanics was used in the first game in this series (Test Subject Blue), but I hadn’t played that game before playing Test Subject Green. https://www.kongregate.com/games/nitrome/test-subject-blue
10. Decisiveness and courage are the key.
Another tip to you. I got stuck on the level 9 jest because I was afraid of the guns at the ceiling. In reality you can run past them if you are quick enough. You have to be very quick also at the end of the level 15.
11. Some guns are destructible.
Another tip to you. I got stuck on the level 26 just because I didn’t know that I can destroy guns at the ceiling. Again, this gameplay mechanics was used in the first game in this series (Test Subject Blue), but I hadn’t played that game before playing Test Subject Green. On the level 9 it was also possible to destroy the guns (after running past them), but not really necessary. On the level 26 it is a must.
Test Subject Green is perfect to me – a cool game with lots of interesting puzzles based mainly on portals and without any annoying enemies. The first game in this series (Test Subject Blue) is very good too, but it is Test Subject Green that is the best platform game I have ever played.
PS. There is also the third game in this series (Test Subject Complete), but it was spoiled by the following things (at least to me):
1. “Improved” plot – after several levels you start operating outside the test chambers and the respawn points stop making any sense.
2. “Moving” screen – I prefer to see the whole level at once, like in the first two games.
3. “Homing” laser – it sucked the fun out of the game for good. I beat first two levels with this “enemy” (19 and 20) and I stopped playing this game at level 21.
I've been regularly playing online chess since the year 2008. In this time I have played more than 8,400 chess games. It may seem like a big number, but there are some chess players with MUCH bigger numbers of games played. I've been tracking such players for some time now. Here are the record holders:
1. Over 204,000 chess games played: https://www.playok.com/en/stat.phtml?u=wiktor12345&g=ch
2. Over 183,000 chess games played: https://www.playok.com/en/stat.phtml?u=emirek&g=ch
3. Over 180,000 chess games played: https://www.playok.com/en/stat.phtml?u=esterx&g=ch
4. Over 150,000 chess games played: https://www.playok.com/en/stat.phtml?u=henry48&g=ch
5. Over 139,000 chess games played: https://www.playok.com/en/stat.phtml?u=hen4daleko&g=ch
Recently the guy from the top of the list joined my table and we played a chess game together! Yay! He is not a pushover, because he wins more than 57 % of his games, but at the time of our play his rating was actually a little lower than mine (this rating is not comparable to any other chess rating because it can change quite rapidly). My opponent was playing very quickly (to play so many games you have to play mostly very short ones) and he lost a pawn. We exchanged all our pieces, but we still had lots of pawns lef (I had 7 and he had 6), so the endgame was quite interesting. I was playing white.
A couple of days ago I recorded my 5000th online chess win! Obviously all those games were blitz chess games (one game lasted on average around 10 minutes). I achieved this milestone by playing 8431 games, so I had won 59.3 % of my games. More importantly I had recorded also 888 draws, so the number of my losses was only 2543 (30.2 % of my games). A fun fact regarding these numbers: I could lose 396 games in a row and I would still have no more than 33.3% losses.
I had imagined that my 5000th online chess win would be an epic long hard fight, but in reality it was totally anticlimactic. My opponent made a huge blunder already on move 5 and resigned after my next move. Well, too bad, but there was also a bright side of this situation – I could analyse and annotate the whole game with ease. More importantly it was one of the rare opening variations that I had actually prepared myself (using a chess engine). This time I made the analysis much more deep and it was fascinating. Let's see the actual game first. I was playing white.
Black resigned.
My notes:
1. The move 1.d4.
I always start with 1.d4 because from my own experience I can say that starting with 1.e4 is a suicide for a chess newcomer – black can answer with 4 (FOUR !!!) different equally good defences that are very different from each other: 1...e5, 1...e6, 1...c6 or 1...c5. Good luck with learning all the basic variations from your own mistakes. What's even worse after 1.e4 it is black's move that usually decides what the kind of game you will be playing (open, semi-open or closed). I didn't like that. I didn't like that at all. When I play with white pieces I want to decide about such things myself.
2. The move 1...d5.
My opponent answered in a typical way. As black I always answer in this way too.
3. The move 2.Nf3.
I NEVER play 2.c4 because this move is played by chess masters, so this opening is very well known to many players. Even chess amateurs can memorize some of such known variations, so I want to put them off the track right away. Putting your opponent off the track is actually one of the easiest way to win a chess game, even on grandmaster level. Chess masters prepare specifically for particular opponents knowing what king of games they like to play. In online chess there is no way to prepare for an opponent because you never know who will join your virtual chess table, so many players play off-beat openings on purpose. Well, some players are so weak and/or know so little about chess openings that they play off-beat openings by accident, but you never know if that's the case. Either way it's much easier to play in a system that you are more familiar with than your opponent.
4. The move 2...Bg4.
Surprise for a surprise! This move is hardly ever played because exchanging a bishop for a knight this early in the game is generally not recommended. However there is some logic behind this move – my opponent threatens to double my pawns on the f-file. I don't want this to happen, but I also don't want to play 3.e3 nor 3.Nbd2.
5. The move 3.Ne5.
This is a very interesting position because now the chess engine Stockfish 9 suggests that black should play 3...Be6, which seems like a totally crazy move! Usually I see black play either 3...Bf5 or 3...Bh5. Let's analyse the second move first because it maintains the threat to double my pawns on the f-file or at least to force my knight to go to the square d3 (a totally unnatural square for the knight) for example after 4.Bf4 f6 5.Nf3 Bxf3:
Such a position is still playable for white, but I would definitely feel off the track, so I have a plan to double my opponent's pawns instead!
I had analysed some variations after 3.Ne5 before, but never as deeply as now. Some of them are pretty fascinating, but usually also “computer-like” (hard to understand). Here's is a rather natural variation for both sides that results in a positional advantage for white (with both sides being off the track):
There is also a trap that black can fall into:
And here's a different variation of the trap:
Black can't hope to capture the pawn on d4 because he (or she) would lose a rook:
In the final position black can't even capture the pawn on g4 because he would lose right away: Qe8#!
Going a whole different rout (playing 5...h6 instead of 5...f6) is also not good for black. Out of curiosity I analysed a “human-like” variation (keeping material equality) till the very end:
So the move 3...Bh5 would not be good for black at all. The other move (3...Bf5) would be a better move that I would answer with 4.Bf4. There would be no opening advantage for white, but to me it would be much more important that I wouldn't be taken off the track. This is the correct strategy for me – when playing in a system that I am familiar with I minimize the risk that I will blunder, so I actually increase my chances for a good result (a draw) or a great result (a win). Many chess amateurs hate draws and they almost always play for a win, which makes them prone to blunders in systems they are not familiar with. Blunders that I can take advantage of. Please notice that for EVERY chess player the “correct strategy” is DIFFERENT because every chess player has different chess abilities. Playing a complicated variation without actually understanding the variation just because chess grandmasters (or chess engines) play this variation is silly.
In reality my opponent played a whole different move.
6. The move 3...Nf6.
Black let me exchanged my knight for his bishop, probably thinking that he would have a “development advantage”.
7. The move 4.Nxg4.
I called opponent's “bluff” and I captured his bishop with my knight.
8. The move 4...Nxg4.
My opponent captured my knight with his knight, as he planned.
9. The move 5.e4.
It was by far the best move to play – moving my pawn with tempo, chasing away the knight and still keeping the c1-h6 diagonal open for my bishop.
10. The move 5...dxe4.
Well, it turns out that I didn't actually chase away the knight – my opponent missed the fact that my queen was threatening his knight and captured my pawn! Most players would have played 5...Nf6. Such a move would actually be rather inconvenient to me because I want both the e-file and the c1-h6 diagonal to be open AND I don't want my knight to be on the square c3 (I prefer to have a pawn there, except for some relatively rare cases). The only move for me to play would be 6.exd5. Interestingly the chess engine Stockfish 9 claims that one of the best moves that black can play then would be 6...c6, but a human player would rather play 6...Nxd5 or 6...Qxd5. The last move is actually the best, but then I could play simply 7.Be2, setting a trap by the way:
If black don't fall for the trap I would followed by 8.Bf3, setting another trap:
11. The move 6.Qxg5.
I captured the undefended knight. Black realised his mistake and resigned.
The analysis of such a silly opening in such a short game made me sure that being a professional chess player must be a bitch. Imagine analysing and trying to memorise HUGE numbers of possible chess variations in many playable chess openings. Insane. But it confirms my opinion that a “correct strategy” is different for every chess player.
(Originally posted on Saturday, 31 August 2019, updated most recently on 30 May 2020)
This post was updated only in the last 3 parts: XIII (Flaws), XIV (Tips) and XV (Inspiration from a movie?).
Have you ever heard about the game Galaxy Harvest? It’s a free online flash game. Not long ago I hadn't heard about it myself, but I am really happy that I stumbled upon it. This game is simply AWESOME! https://www.kongregate.com/games/levelrusso/galaxy-harvest
There are so many cool things about Galaxy Harvest that I don’t know where to start. I like physics very much, so made a list based on this interest of mine.
I. Distances are given in light years (LY).
One light year is a distance that light travels in vacuum in one Julian year (one Julian year = 365.25days * 24h/day * 60m/h * 60s/m = 33557600s). This distance is HUGE, because the speed of light on its own is huge: 299792458 m/s. One light year is equal to 9460730472580800 m. For comparison light travels the distance between Sun and Earth in only 8 minutes and 19.0048 seconds.
II. Distances to habitable exoplanets are believable.
An exoplanet is a planet in another star system. The game shows only one planet for each alien star – the planet that theoretically CAN be habitable. Obviously the sizes of stars and planets are not to scale, because otherwise they would be too small to see. The closest exoplanets in the game are around 10 LY, similar to our world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_terrestrial_exoplanet_candidates
III. No super-powerful engines.
There are no fictional super-powerful engines running on hardly any fuel that enable a spaceship to reach a speed close to the speed of light. On the contrary! It takes thousands of years to reach other planetary systems! Cool. And thought-provoking. Think about it: a single space travel lasts thousands of years – hundreds of human generations. And the whole game can span millions of years! How does it compare to the fact (or rather to the belief) that our civilization is only several thousand years old?
IV. Average speed of spaceships can be calculated.
The speed of spaceships (neither average nor maximum) is NOT given in the game, but you can calculate the average speed yourself in a very easy way! To learn the precise time of the journey I stopped the time flow in the game, wrote down the in-game year, send a scout spaceship to an unexplored planet, started the time flow again and when the scout spaceship reached the planet the in-game journal updated automatically and gave me a precise year when it happened. Then I simply calculated the difference between these two dates.
Knowing distance in LY to a planet and knowing the time of journey is enough to calculate the average speed. For example if the distance is 14.2 LY and the journey lasts 5680 years then the average speed of the spaceship is 0.0025c (0.0025 of the speed of light = 14.2 LY / 5680 years). Please notice that this speed is only for non-upgraded engines. Every speed upgrade increases the average speed by 0.00025c – after ten upgrades the average speed is 0.0050c (0.0025c + 10 * 0.00025c = 0.0025c + 0.0025c).
Such an average speed in terms of our current technology is actually extremely high because 0.0025c is equal to 2698132.122 km/h (0.0025 * 299792458 m/s = 749481.145 m/s = 749.481145 km/s). The fastest man-made space vehicle so far is the Parker Solar Probe (it reached 95 km/s and is expected to reach 192 km/s in the year 2025), BUT these speeds are so high ONLY because the probe is orbiting the Sun and the gravity of the Sun accelerates the probe when it is closest to the sun, but then it slows it down. This is true for ANY object travelling around the Sun on elliptical orbit:
Here's a GIF showing how the speed of the Parker Solar Probe will be changing over time, but the animation is too fast (you can save it and run it in slow motion using a media player):
So, the highest speed of the Parker Solar Probe is its highest ORBITAL speed. On the other hand the in-game speed of 0.0025c (749.48 km/s) is the travelling speed between two stars! It's HUGE! So far there are only 5 man-made objects leaving the Solar System. Fastest of them is the Voyager 1, but it moves at ONLY 17 km/s! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_leaving_the_Solar_System
The in-game speed of 0.0025c (749.48 km/s) is 44 times higher than Voyager 1's!
Off-topic trivia: Voyager 1 was actually launched 16 days AFTER Voyager 2, but it had a different trajectory and reached Jupiter first (hence it is numbered as 1). On the other hand Voyager 2 closely passed by more planets, but one of them (Neptune) slowed it down (instead of accelerating) because it was used to change Voyager 2's trajectory to make Voyager 2 closely pass by Triton (Neptune's largest moon).
V. Average speed does NOT depend on the length of the journey!
I checked the average speed of a scout spaceship with non-upgraded engines during shorter and longer journeys in the game and the speed was always the same (around 0.0025c). At first I thought that it is wrong (longer journey means that there is more time to accelerate), but after a while I realized that it is perfectly correct. Why? Because during a very long journey the engines will be actually working only in the beginning of the journey (to accelerate a spaceship) and towards the end of the journey (to slow down the spaceship). Most of the journey (by far) will happen without any use of engines.
Accelerating for longer periods of time takes more fuel, but more fuel means a spaceship is heavier so it’s harder to accelerate. Moreover the longer a spaceship accelerates in the beginning of the journey the longer it will have to be slowing down towards the end of the journey. The process of slowing down takes less fuel because the spaceship is lighter (because some of the fuel has already been used), but it is still LOTS of fuel.
A spaceship will not slow down on its own because there is no friction and no air drag in space. Well, actually towards the end of the journey it would accelerate on its own because it would be closer and closer to an alien star/planet and their gravity forces would be bigger and bigger. The process of slowing down is actually opposite to the process of accelerating in the beginning the journey, including escaping the gravity forces of the home planet/star. Either way the engines have to counter the forces of gravity – in the beginning of the journey in order to move away from the home planet/star and towards the end of the journey in order to slow down to get to the orbit of the alien planet (instead of crashing straight into the planet).
Here are the basic stages of a journey to an exoplanet:
1. Escaping from the gravity of home planet.
2. Escaping from the gravity of home star.
3. Travelling with a constant velocity (speed + its vector).
4. Slowing down to approach the alien planet with optimal velocity.
5. Slowing down in order to get to the orbit of the alien planet.
Obviously the phrase “escaping from the gravity of home planet/star” is a kind of simplification because the range of the gravity is unlimited, but over very long distances this force is extremely week. In the third stage the rounded travelling speed should be constant (the loss of speed should be minimal).
Here is an example of rough calculations for the basic stages of a journey to an exoplanet that is 14.2 light years (LY) away from Earth with an average speed of 0.0025c:
0. Assembling a spaceship on Earth's orbit.
I think that a big spaceship would have to be assembled on the orbit of Earth because it takes lots of fuel to accelerate even relatively light object to the speed of around 7800m/s (the orbital speed of Earth) in a relatively short time (a space shuttle needs less than 9 minutes to get to orbit). It wouldn't be possible to launch a big spaceship directly from the surface of the Earth because the mass of the needed fuel would make the spaceship insanely heavy. All parts of the spaceship would have to be transported to orbit one by one or in small packs.
1. Acceleration 1m/s/s for 1 hour.
Please notice that accelerating a big/heavy spaceship at 1m/s/s would be actually a great technological success.
The starting speed is 7800m/s, so the speed at the end of this stage will be 11400m/s (7800m/s + 1h*1m/s/s = 7800m/s + 60*60s*1m/s/s = 7800m/s + 3600m/s). This is clearly higher than the escape velocity of Earth (11186m/s at the surface of Earth under the assumption that there would be no air drag/friction). Actually the escape velocity for an object on a circular orbit is lower: the orbital speed * square root of 2 = 7800m/s * 1.4142 = 11031m/s.
2. Acceleration 0.025m/s/s for 342 days.
In the second stage one more factor could be important in some cases – the speed of Earth around the Sun (around 29.78 km/s). Obviously it would be best to launch the spaceship in the same/similar direction, BUT some exoplanets can circle stars that are “over” or “under” the Solar System, so the motion of the Earth would be inconsequential then. For this very reason my calculations ignore this speed.
The speed at the start of the second stage is 11400m/s, so the speed at the end of this stage will be 750120m/s (11400m/s + 342days * 0.025m/s/s = 11400m/s + 342 * 24 * 60 * 60s * 0.025m/s/s = 11400m/s + 29548800s * 0.025m/s/s = 11400m/s + 738720m/s). This is clearly higher than the escape velocity of Sun (617500m/s at the surface of the Sun). The speed at the end of the second stage will be equal to 0.002502131c (750120m/s / 299792458m/s).
Please notice that if the spaceship started in the same direction as the Earth's movement around Sun the speed at the end of this stage would be 779900m/s (750120m/s + 29780m/s), which would be equal to 0.002601466c (779900m/s / 299792458m/s). So, the direction of the launch in reference to the Earth's movement is important, but not overwhelmingly so.
Obviously launching the spaceship in the direction opposite to the Earth's movement around Sun would make no sense – it would be better to simply wait half a year and only then launch the spaceship in the same direction as the Earth's movement around Sun.
3. No acceleration/deceleration for around 5680 years
Well, to be precise: there would me some minimal deceleration coming from the force of gravity of the Sun, but it won't really matter because at the start of the third stage the spaceship will be VERY far away from the Sun and over very long distances the force of gravity is extremely week.
Please, notice that the rough number of years can be calculated this way: 14.2 LY / 0.0025c = 5680 years, but in our example the precise speed is slightly higher (750120m/s = 0.002502131c). Let's calculate the distance at the end of the second stage. The formula is this:
Starting speed * time + acceleration * time * time / 2 = 11400m/s * 29548800s + 0.025m/s/s * 29548800s * 29548800s / 2 = 336856320000m + 10914144768000m = 11251001088000m = 75.2au (11251001088000m / 149597870700m). This distance is slightly more than 1.9 times farther away from the Sun than Pluto's average orbit (75.2au / 39.48au).
At such a long distance (11251001088000m) the acceleration in the direction of the Sun will be only 0.0000010484m/s/s. (acceleration of the Sun = gravitational constant (G) * mass of the Sun / distance^2 = 1.3271244*10^20m*m*m/s/s / 11251001088000m * 11251001088000m).
The speed is high enough (750120m/s = 0.002502131c) that it will “stabilise” after some time – after some time the loss of speed will be seen only at decimal places and the round value of the speed will always be the same. My rough estimates (day-after-day calculations) show that the speed should “stabilise” at 750104m/s (0.00250208c) after around 9919 days of the third stage (slightly more than 27 years). As you can see the loss of speed should be minimal – only 16 m/s out of 750120 m/s (0.00002133 = 0.002133%).
4. Deceleration -0.025m/s/s for 342 days.
5. Deceleration -1m/s/s for 1 hour.
The values in stages 4 and 5 are given under assumption that the alien star/planet are exactly the same as Sun/Earth. If the alien star is more massive than Sun then the deceleration will have to be longer or harder to counter the bigger gravity of the alien star. If the alien planet is more massive than Earth then it’s a mixed bag – on one hand its gravity will be stronger, but on the other hand its orbital speed will be higher. I think that overall the acceleration would still have to be longer or harder.
The process of slowing down in most cases will have to be longer because when a spaceship starts its journey it does it at the very best moment (so the escape path from Earth ends up pointing straight at the alien star/planet), but towards the end of its journey the spaceship may be going in the opposite direction than the alien planet (the alien planet revolves around the alien star in its own cycle). In such case the spaceship would have to “wait” for the alien planet to make a half circle, so they would be going in the same direction when the fifth stage begins. It means that the spaceship would have to start decelerating sooner, so the journey would take slightly longer. Either way the whole journey would last thousands of years, so it doesn't really matter.
Summing up: in our example the stages of the journey were these:
1. Acceleration 1m/s/s for 1 hour.
2. Acceleration 0.025m/s/s for 342 days.
3. No acceleration/deceleration for around 5680 years.
4. Deceleration -0.025m/s/s for 342 days.
5. Deceleration -1m/s/s for 1 hour.
This example clearly shows that whatever velocity the spaceship has in the third stage of the journey it will be the rounded average velocity of the whole journey! The precise value will be slightly lower, because the third stage will be slightly shorter than the whole journey. In the example above the third stage will be 99.967037% of the whole journey, so the precise average speed will be slightly more than 749872,738m/s (750120m/s * 0.99967037 + some tiny values coming from the velocities in other stages of the journey). This is slightly more than 0.0025013c.
There is another crucial thing arising from the example above – most of the fuel will be used in the SECOND stage of the journey! Let's compare the second stage to the first stage – the acceleration will be 40 times lower than in the first stage (1m/s/s / 0.025m/s/s = 40), but it will last 8208 times longer (342 days / 1h = 342 days * 24h/day / 1h). I think that even if the engines were more economical in the second stage (much smaller force/acceleration coming from the engines) this stage would still consume most of the fuel.
The fourth stage is similar, but the spaceship is lighter by the mass of the used fuel. Please notice that in the fourth stage the spaceship is slowing down, so to use the same engines the spaceship has to be pointing in the opposite direction – small side engines can be used to rotate the spaceship around its own axis before the fourth stage begins.
In the third stage of the journey (most of the journey) the spaceship will be travelling with a constant velocity (of 0.0025c), so there will be no fuel consumption from the engines at all.
The example above shows why the average speed of a spaceship in the game is always the same (no matter how long the journey lasts).
VI. Limited range of spaceships.
In the game the range of spaceships is limited. At first I thought that it is wrong (after a spaceship reaches the travelling speed its engines will be turned off), but after a while I realized that it is perfectly correct. Why? Because fuel will be needed not only for acceleration. Every device on a spaceship that will be needed during the whole journey (for example detectors, internal clocks, force shields and computers analysing the trajectory) will use LOTS of fuel during thousands (or tens of thousands) of years. A spaceship will need some detectors that will have to be regularly switched on and off to detect big dangers (mostly big asteroids or some very dense dust clouds). The spaceship will also need some major force shields that will have to be switched on in case of big dangers that can’t be dodged and also minor force shields that will have to be turned on constantly as protection against small undetectable asteroids. In the game I imagine that the cost of the fuel consumption by engines is included in the cost of a spaceship and the cost of the fuel consumption by other things is calculated according to the length of the journey.
VII. Space events
In the game there are some space events that are kind of scary. Just read the examples:
VIII. The game changes the perspective on human life.
The game actually encourages you to destroy intelligent highly advanced civilizations for technological points, but we ourselves (as human beings) can be seen as such a civilization. Could some alien civilization come and use Earth as a testing ground? How would we feel then?
IX. You can be good anyway.
I wouldn’t want to be destroyed by a more advanced civilization under no circumstances and for this very reason I try not to harm intelligent species in the game. I prefer, whenever possible, to role-play this game as a kind of space farmer who plants seeds and later harvest all the crops. To start another cycle he has to plant new seeds again. In the early game (without heavy harvesters) I send (at the right time) several normal harvesters (enough to harvest all biomass) one after another and right after them I send a seeder to start a whole new cycle (I never use the option “auto-harvest”):
This way I prevent any intelligent life from developing (I reset the process over and over again). Obviously I sometimes slip (bad timing or miscalculation) and intelligent life develops against my will, but I harvest the whole planet as soon as possible anyway, so the amount of suffering is smallest.
X. Life can emerge on its own.
Sometimes life can emerge on its own:
This is cool because the game shows you that one theory about creation of life doesn't negate any other theory. It could be “transported” from another place/planet, but it could also develop on its own. Anyway, sometimes I leave such a planet alone and just observe. After some time (far too quickly actually) a high-tech civilization emerges:
I like to read about such high-tech civilisations.
As cool as it seems, the high-tech civilizations are not really threats to you, unless you are not careful. It's good and it's bad. Mostly good, because the game gives you a feeling of having God-like abilities to rule over life on the nearest planets. Man, this game is thought-provoking in so many different ways!
I used to protect high-tech civilizations from the “space locust” – some mysterious alien civilization that devours all life on every planet that it reaches. Unlike me, the space locust swarms only destroy life without seeding it first. Again, this concept is good and bad at the same time. Mostly good, because it actually gives you a reason for all this harvesting. I role-play this game as a project that aims to achieve two goals:
a) developing an ultimate interstellar weapon for defensive purposes,
b) gathering enough energy produced from biomass to use this weapon.
The value 3.7 under the planet on the screenshot above means that there is a technological civilization, not some intelligent but primitive life.
One time I ignored all planets where life emerge on its own, but after some time they were so numerous that it became annoying. I destroyed those civilizations that attacked me or planets that were under my “jurisdiction” and I left all the other at the space locust's mercy:
Interestingly, one planet survived an attack (but was overrun later):
Now I usually harvest all biomass also from the planets where life developed on its own, but I upgrade my range only to the level 6, so any life that develops on planets that are farther away is left alone forever (or rather as long as it is not devoured by the space locust). I don't try to explore planets that are very far away, because a lag of tens of thousands of years is annoying – it is hard to estimate how many harvesters I should send to gather all biomass. When my technology is high enough to build Terramorpher I improve the habitability of some of the close planets.
XI. Biomass as a source of energy and space currency.
I role-play this game this way: the biomass can be used for energy production that can be used for the obtaining other resources or carrying out scientific experiments needed for technological progress. HOWEVER, to obtain enough biomass to run our project we need to harvest all biomass from several planets, so we can't do it on our own planet. If we produced energy from alien biomass on our own planet the carbon dioxide generated during energy production would have to be processed further by using technology mimicking what happens in plants, otherwise there would be more and more carbon dioxide on our planet. Instead our harvesters will successively harvest biomass and transform it into energy on the orbit of an alien planet and then just transport to our planet the energy stored in a useful way. This way young plants on the alien planet will have lots of carbon dioxide for growth. As the project has to be self-sufficient we need to use some common currency for everything and the most natural currency is obviously the biomass itself.
XII. Automatic spaceships.
I believe that long space journeys will be automatic for a very long time to come and the game actually supports my belief in a way.
In the game a scout spaceship never comes back. Pretty logical – the scout spaceship can stay on the orbit of a planet and report any changes that happen later. A battle spaceship (for example Fighter or Cruiser) never comes back either, which is annoying, but it can be explained that the most valuable part of battle spaceships are some kind of missiles. After the missiles are launched the value of the empty hull is minimal. However, this fact (that a battle spaceship never comes back) suggests that it is automatic – obviously we can't let its crew die in the space, right?
What about seeders and harvesters? Well, I can't imagine a manned spaceship (of any kind) that travels for thousands or tens of thousands of years. That's hundreds or thousands of human GENERATIONS. So many generations would have to spend their whole life on a spaceship! Without ever seeing a bright sunlight. Moreover such a journey would have to be totally self-supporting but it is impossible in deep space where there is hardly any light – no solar panels and no free-growing plants there. Hard to even imagine. And just think about all the pregnant women, newborn babies and diapers on a spaceship. Obviously there would be no new generations without them! The only alternative would be some kind of hibernation, but I can't imagine a hibernation lasting thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Seeding and harvesting biomass should be easy enough to be conducted by automatic machines because biomass is a relatively soft “material”. This is the way I role-play this game.
XIII. Flaws.
At the end I have to point out some things that don’t make any sense to me and don't fit my way of role-playing this game:
1. Ancient harvesters.
Sometimes you can find an “ancient harvester full of biomass” that you can repair and use. But how can you “repair” an ancient alien spaceship when you know nothing about its design? And how is it possible that the biomass (or energy produced from biomass) remains useful after such a long time of “storage”? I base my role-play on automatic spaceships/machines (for reasons given above) and such automatic “repair attempt” would be even less likely to succeed, so I order such ancient alien harvesters to self-destruct before they reach my home planet (as if nothing ever happened).
2. Ancient ruins.
Sometimes you get technology points from “exploring ancient ruins”. As cool as it sounds it doesn’t make any sense to me. Ancient ruins are still ruins – they don’t work in a way they were designed for. I base my role-play on automatic spaceships/machines (for reasons given above) and such automatic exploration would be even less valuable. Whenever I get such a “free” technology point I think about it as “unexpected technological breakthrough done by our scientists” OR as a result of scientific experiments carried out in space during long journeys. The same goes for “free” technology points form exploring “unidentified objects”.
3. Blackhole Booster.
Blackhole Booster is the only thing in the game that is totally messed up from the scientific point of view – it “creates a black hole near the planet that increases relative time speed”. Oh, boy. Black hole is something very massive and time SLOWS DOWN near massive objects, not accelerates! And how can you create a black hole anyway? I never use Blackhole Booster, because it doesn't make any sense.
4. Headquarters.
In the game there is no home planet orbiting a home star, but an object that cannot move, called Headquarters. This object is one big question-mark. I myself role-play this game as if the Headquarters were Earth orbiting Sun in the very far future.
5. Interstellar Deathray.
Interstellar Deathray has an instant effect, so it's faster than light, which is impossible. Even role-playing it as a ray travelling at the speed of light doesn't really improve anything – it would be impossible to hit a moving target that is several dozens light years away, considering especially that we know the position of the moving target that was true yet other several dozens years ago. Another problem is the meaning of the word “swarm”. After some time I realised that it can, or rather should be understood as a group of small spaceships, instead of just one big spaceship like it is pictured in-game. In such case one deathray wouldn't be able to destroy hundreds of different objects. For these reasons I've recently decided to ignore the Interstellar Deathray completely.
XIV. Tips.
My way of role-playing Galaxy Harvest is easily doable in the main campaign (which is actually one big tutorial that describes gameplay mechanics step by step), but on the map Hive in the Random Sector (a map that throws lots of space locust at you) it is very hard even on the medium difficulty setting. Beating this map on the highest difficulty setting, even without ANY self-restrictions (ANY role-playing rules) is sometimes outright impossible because some crucial things are totally random. This is why I would like to give you some tips.
1. Free Tech Points are crucial.
You get free technological points (Tech Points) from exploring exoplanets in a random way, BUT you don't have to restart the game to get a different outcome. It's enough to reload a game! You can save the game before your Scout spaceship reaches an exoplanet and reload the game over and over again until you get a free Tech Point. Then you can save the game again right before exploring another exoplanet. It feels almost like cheating, but technically it's not a cheat at all. There are always 7 exoplanets within the starting range of your spaceships, so you can get 7 free Tech Points right at the start of the game (on the medium difficulty setting) or very soon into the game (on the hard difficulty setting you have too little starting biomass to explore all 7 exoplanets right away). Well, on the medium difficulty setting it's more than enough to get 3 free Tech Points from the 7 closest exoplanets.
2. Big exoplanets are crucial.
The positions and habitabilities of all the exoplanets are random. If you get a position where all big habitable exoplanets are very far away from Earth then you should restart the game – small exoplanets produce too little biomass, even if they have good habitability. You should also restart the game if you get a position where a big exoplanet (at least 2.0) with good habitability (at least 0.9) has an atypical climate (cold, hot, etc.) – at the start of the game the biomass production on such a planet will be too slow. In other words: you should have a big exoplanet with good habitability with normal climate as close as possible.
3. Genetics upgrades are crucial.
I hate Genetics as a science that interferes with nature, but it can be role-played as a normal cultivation of crops (using the best seeds from the most recent crops over and over again). In the game every level of Genetics increases biomass production by 16%, always in reference to the starting biomass production, which makes a HUGE difference anyway. Obviously you have to develop other technological branches too, especially Capacity (to make biomass harvesting more profitable), but the overall “income” depends solely on how much biomass is available out there.
4. Very high upgrade levels are NOT worth it.
The needed biomass investments are bigger and bigger while the “return” is smaller and smaller. For example Capacity of harvesters increases by 20 per every level: first it's a 20% increase (from 100 to 120), then it's a 16.7% increase (from 120 to 140), then 14.3%, 12.5%, 11.1%, 10.0%, 9.1%, 8.3%, 7.7% and so on. On the other hand the biomass investments are 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 600 and so on, which means that increases per 100 biomass invested are 13.3%, 8.3%, 5.7%, 4.2%, 3.2%, 2.5%, 2.0%, 1.7%, 1.3% and so on. It's almost useless to upgrade Genetics and Capacity past level 12. Actually, I don't upgrade Capacity past level 10 for practical reason – the capacity of a Harvester spaceship is exactly 300 then, which allows easy calculations of the number of Harvesters needed to gather all biomass from an exoplanet.
5. Very distant exoplanets are less useful.
Every spaceships needs more fuel to travel farther, which means higher costs. Moreover it's much more difficult to calculate the number of Harvesters needed to gather all biomass from a very distant exoplanet, because the biomass keeps growing after you send the Harvesters. Most importantly Space Locust Swarms usually attack closest exoplanets (closest for them, not for you), so your range have to be MUCH bigger for you to have time to protect your “investments” AND at the same time to prevent the swarm from growing. Too much trouble combined with too many Tech Points wasted. It's enough to upgrade both Range and Speed to level 6, believe me.
6. Cruiser spaceship is enough.
You don't have to upgrade Weapon level at all, but you should still invest 3 Tech Points to make the Cruiser spaceship available. Sending 1 Cruiser is clearly better than sending 4 Fighters. On the other hand 1 Dreadnought is equal to 2 Cruisers and 1 Fighter, but it requires 5 more Tech Points. It's not really worth it. It's better to siply invest these 5 Tech Points into Genetics and then upgrade the levels of Genetics (investing biomass energy-units) to “earn” more biomass later and to be able to send more Cruisers.
7. Biggest spaceships are risky.
The random event about your spaceships being destroyed in an asteroid collision is less painful when it happens to your Harvester or Cruiser rather than to your Heavy Harvester or Dreadnought. On short distances Harvesters are as profitable as Heavy Harvesters anyway, so there is no need at all to use the bigger spaceship. This is another reason to seed only the closest exoplanets, but using Terramorpher spaceships is a must then (to increase the habitabilities of the closest exoplanets).
XV. Inspiration from a movie?
I've just re-watched Independence Day and the alien civilization in this movie is described as a kind of locust too! I didn't remember that!
