Comments by CBagleyJones

i havn't played the game yet, so i won't rate, but i just wanted to say
that the graphics for this game are beautiful :)

i'm sure paul leno is a great bloke
but isn't this all one great big joke? :))

wow this looks great, lol, and alot like gridlock!!

thanks for your comments guys :)
yes there are a lot of generals, it is true. when i finally got this game
playable, that is where i stopped, cause i was fried of it, so i am
guessing there is great room for improvement. i do see this game still in
the 'beta' stage. all advice is really appreciated.
those generals are not just there though, for defence. they are there to
actually cramp up their own army, to stop the flying pieces getting into
attacking positions straight away, and also, to cramp their own king, so
as to make it dangerous for their own king lol :)

i guess the idea of lots of generals, is to make it a real 'attack from
afar' game, not one where they 'scoot around the board' (the flying pieces)

interesting idea though about the 'only 6 generals', but the generals on
the 3rd rank i feel may be needed, it can quickly run to the center, and
therefore hamper the enemy flyingstar and flyingcomet from attacking
quickly. when those pieces come out fast, in combo with flyingmoon, they
can quickly mate.
the 4th rank pawn stops the flyingcomet from straight away coming out.
i know the generals on a2 j2 are just not required, but i also think of
how zillions plays, and zillions, being sometimes crazy, will move the
flyingsun from a1 to j2, unless it thinks for a minute at least sometimes,
and that is just a dumb move.
not mirroring yes interesting, you would have to change the kings also,
otherwise the flyingmoon could check straight away when it can move to 2nd
rank. i did briefly look at it, it could be a good idea, but it does
present some unexpected probs maybe, i am still somewhat fried with it
lol, so i didn't look for too long at the moment.
anyway, if you can present your best idea, in a saved game maybe and send
to me, or if anyone likes, that would be great, i am all up for the idea
of a future update, presenting different ideas to see what is best.

yes i used to go out with the good doctor, a fantastic person, wouldn't
shut up about flyingchess though .. lol, just kidding :)
yeah, interesting game, is it an original idea?
i don't know much about those 'multi-board' games, i don't know if a
piece on say level 2 influences things on level 1 and level 2 at same
time, so i find hard to rate, but i wouldn't rate it anything less than
good that is for sure. i'll wait for more info till i rate, wish it was
on a bigger board though, than the one that marek has put out.
of course, Fergus is totally right about the 'sus' early comments about
the good doctor, if these people knew the doc, surely the doc would of
commented here, or didn't you tell him we were talking about his game :)
anyway, i do like the idea and game.

despite the cannon thing, this game is brilliant!!!
so much fun he he, i love it, looks good too.

yes this game can't have a 'poor' rating, it's fantastic :))
it would be even better with the cannon prob fixed, but even still, that
can't make it anything less than .. fantastic :)

ok i updated this game, and i think it is now better. i changed the
pawns/generals starting position, same amount though :) but it has allowed
me to add an extra 'flying comet' so i think the extra firepower is
pretty good.
it also makes it harder for the 'flying star' to exchange themselves
off.
i have also added another variant, with a 'flying horse' .. moves as a
4-1 leaper alfil and king, she is a pretty bouncey little filly :) ..
could too a bit too dangerous for this game, (mate threats galore) but i
tried it once (lol) and it played good, it could be the best variant, so i
have added it as for testing yep :)
after you guys made your comments, i felt encouraged to go back and look
at the game, so i want to say 'thanks' ok :)
oh, if any editor reads this, can you add this game to the 'whats new'
section as being 'updated' thanks!

Crazyhouse is not a recognized variant of the month?
i don't know how that could be, it shouldn't even have to be voted on,
not a hour goes by on the planet where a crazyhouse game is not being
played, and that is a conservative estimate.
you should make crazyhouse a recognized variant along with whatever other
game you recognize in a future month

oh that is pretty sad, i didn't know it was removed.
was there a vote taken to remove it?
may the chess gods have mercy on this site lol :)
i don't understand the comment .. 'we don't know enough about
chaturanga to actually recognize it' .. isn't it the game that is
generally accepted as the mother of chess, isn't it the game that inspired
'shatranj' .. the game where the king starts on e1, and the game where
the king can move like a knight 1 time during the game etc etc ..  we can
recognize it, we just don't fully know the rules (maybe)
reading in your section 'what is a recognized variant', chaturanga looks
like one to me, i don't see anything saying that all the rules must be
known. and it is not the fault of the game that all the rules are not
known. anyway, with obviously such a huge historic ancient game, who cares if it is unclear.
Tony Quintanilla  makes a good point here with his comment, and i quote
..
'As far as 'recognized' goes, I would tend to think that both
'Chaturanga' and 'Shatranj' should be recognized, if for no other
reason that the CVP articles on these games suggest that the Indian game
migrated to Persia. Not 'recognizing' Chaturanga would seem to ignore
this root.'
anyway, i have had my say on axeing chaturanga, i will make sure i wear all
black every 4th of the 4th from now on :)

i would love to vote for it, but it seems you also have to make a list in
your preference order for a lot of games, most which i don't know
anything about, so it doesn't seem fair to vote.
we do know crazyhouse is played every hour of the day, probably on icc
alone that happens. i think the trouble is, so many people have played
crazyhouse heaps, or often, but are now interested in other new variants
etc etc and don't feel inclinded to vote for it. everyone here are fans
of chess variants, and get excited about new different stuff. i reckon you
could probably pick over 5 'recognized variants' at the moment, and
crazyhouse is being played more often than all of them put together.
but whatever.

yes there is dabbaba/wazir graphic, but not a fers/alfil but most that use
that combo use the elephant, which would suit more than bishop, seeing
dabbaba is old piece etc
brilliant idea about the king spawning pawns!

what does the person who made the game have to say about it?
how do you know that the pieces you call 'bishops' are bishops?

just a couple of questions, when you drop a pawn (cannot check king) you
get another turn, but you don't say if that pawn can move again, next
turn. i am guessing it can't, it would be a bit tough if it could.
i don't understand where you say 'X=Star: Moves 1 space diagonally. When
it captures, it says where it is and you get another turn.'
do you mean 'stays' instead of 'says', meaning after 'star'
captures, it cannot move next turn but another piece can? (same with 'i
point').

http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/contest/royalcourt.html
this game has a knight that also moves as a king too, called a
'crownedknight'

Stanley Random Chess gave me a good laugh when i first read about it, and
this site needs all the laughs it can get. i personally think it should
not be removed.
Next thing you will want to remove 'Gridlock' he he.

Moro is the best!!! :))

seriously, you need to spend a weekend with kate moss if you didn;t see the
'tongue in cheek' side of SRC.
anyway, if you started playing this game, you would have to play someone
who knew the rules right?! (lol)
if you started playing say on brainking server or whatever it is called,
would you eventually be able to know all the rules?

moro kasim is offically drawn now (go moro)

yep, most chess players have no sense of humor alright lol
he never said he was going to play the game, so i guess he stills finds it
amusing. i find it amusing, and i find your post amusing too :)
i get the internet, regardless of if i was to play src or not, i don't
really see a cost in it, maybe there is, who cares, and anyway, who would
seriously play src ha ha, but if you did, i think that is great :)
let us know how it goes :)

moro wins again, 2 wins in a row, against anand and kasim, not bad going

huh people bad mouthing the name 'elephant'?! :)
i like the name 'elephantqueen' for alfil/fers, everyone knows the
elephant mostly indicates alfil move, and fers is related to queen, i
think, in some way, he he, anyway, hey joe :)
(i love the name 'alibaba' hate the name 'fearful')

very interesting indeed, and courageous too i guess, saying at a chess site
that chess is flawed lol.
i think giving the alfil the power of bishop and throwing a piece like the
queen in the game has greatly made chess unstable, would you agree on that?
(not to mention the double pawn move rule).
what do you think of the openning set up of 4 player chaturanga?

austin take it easy, i don't think there is a strong drive to have this
game removed, just ya normal bunch of knockers, which you should
understand, because games make it to this site, and they are a 'joke' on
purpose, and src can easily be mistaken as this.
anyway, now to a important question ...
how was src played before computers came along ... someone must of known
of the rules lol ...
kind of funny how much talk this game gets, with seemingly no one
bothering to try out the game at schemeingmind he he

wow, only played about 5 games but this game seems pretty good, the
missiles are fantastic and no problem with the 50 move rule. i love the
advanced pawns with the cannons placed in behind them, makes for fast and
sharp play. i like the way the pawns move too, great game.

oh great, why do i have to talk so much ... your right, the last few days
comments are gone!! .. and i gave 'american chess' such a good rap, do i
have to do it again lol :)

i had to edit my rating because i did not fully understand your rules
earlier, i think it is a pretty interesting variant too, making unique
situations. there is also another variant in ancient chaturanga with the
idea in 'all vs all' of taking over the army of the king you capture,
but first you must place the king you capture, from off board, in to a
zone, your or their starting position, i forget. that variant is
interesting too.
pretty cool game you got here i think.

american chess, how can i praise this game enough. stunning, highly 
original,beautiful game. love the soldier, colonel, artillery, missile, 3
kings, the rule about having to have a king in the 'zone', and pieces
promoting to kings on final rank. 
also the 50 move rule is soooo cool. the missile ... ooooh baby, lol, what
a piece, awesomely powerful, yet it is totally playable because it can't
hit the final rank. as someone said, you can feel the power of this piece
throughout the game. best game i've seen all year i would say. 
well done andy, and supreme thanks to larry for making this a zillions
game.

talking about 'authors intent' by 'none' a few comments ago, i don't
think it matters how the inventor of ultima (Robert Abbott) intended the
longleaper to move, at the time of creation, i think it matters more how
he thinks it should move right now. 
an author can create a game, and all the pieces move 'as intended', but
that doesn't mean the game will play 'as intended' .. for 'some reason
or other' .. and i don't think that is a fault by the author, games with
unusual pieces probably have to be play tested for awhile, and not
everyone has the chance to do that. i don't see a problem 'adjusting' a
game to 'fine tune' it, at a later date.
as far as the authors of games that sprung from ultima, they too should
adjust the movement of the longleaper to play best for their game, seeing
some of these 'ultima' games turned out to be different, and really
their own game, inspired from ultima.

i commented on this game here -->
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/external.php?itemid=americanchess

lol

looks brilliant!!
where is the zrf!!!
lol :)

yes, it is a chess variant, called many names .. Also know as: Suicide
Chess, Losing Chess, Killer Chess, Take-all Chess, Giveaway Chess, Must
Capture Chess .. see here -->
http://www.chessvariants.org/diffobjective.dir/giveaway.html

wouldn't you drop the pieces pretty quickly?
it is a pretty interesting idea that if the trojan horse is captured,
whatever inside is given to the opposition, makes life dangerous if you
try to advance the t-horse inside enemy lines .. i know when i first read
that rule i thought .. 'oh that is heavy, lose the t-horse and what is
inside enemy gets', but, i think i like it now , it would make you be careful, 
you just couldn't afford to lose t-horse with pieces inside anyway, 
so i couldn't see it happening that often  .. 
once again, terrific looking game.

knight + camel + zebra is a buffalo
http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/buffalo.html

hey joe at this site here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC-GM.htm#F
the 'alfil + fers' is listed under the name 'Ferfil'!
there are a lot of interesting piece descriptions at that site.

i like the rule if you bare the enemy king, you win, even if you can be
bared next move, it is more exciting, and makes for less draws he he.
i thought this rule used to exist first, but then got changed, is this
right?
i think i remember reading here on this site someone saying this
somewhere.

how would you describe, if possible, these group of leapers in one sentence
(or two if need be)
Tripper (3,3) leaper
Commuter (4,4) leaper
Threeleaper (0,3) leaper
Fourleaper (0,4) leaper
Flamingo (1,6) leaper
Antelope (3,4) leaper
Root-fifty leaper (5,5) + (1,7) leaper
Lancer (2,4) leaper
Fiveleaper (0,5) + (3,4) leaper

it should be done properely, you should update it to include that
variant at zillions site, then tell the ed's here, i'll email you

I just noticed actually, everything you said after 'extremely awkward' could be used to describe these pieces. Anyway, i was just wondering if they were, as i said earlier, 'categorized' as something etc etc

hey, merry christmas everyone :)

well i called the 0-5, 4-3 leaper a fiveleaper, because i've never seen it
referred to as anything else. if you 'google' the word 'fiveleaper'
plenty of websites have info on the fiveleaper, and every single one i've
seen gives the fiveleaper as a 0-5, 4-3 leaper. some sites are pretty cool
too, here is an amazing one that gives 'fiveleaper tours' on a 8x8
board, see how many there are! http://www.ktn.freeuk.com/9f.htm

Yes i agree, people should be able to name pieces as they see fit. For Sky i tried to use 
names that seem the most commonly used. 'All the King's Men' site gives all leapers in Sky 
except the Flamingo and Lancer, with no reference to a 6-1 and 4-2 leaper. I had never seen 
the names 'tripper' and 'commuter' before, but these names are also given at 'knights tour 
notes' site, along with the lancer, on this page here http://www.ktn.freeuk.com/9a.htm#(3) 
it also has other pieces names mentioned here that are interesting. i found the name 'flamingo'
from this site here. anyway, lol, that is why there are boring names like 'threeleaper' and 
'fourleaper' etc etc :) oh here is 'All King's Men' which is a glossary of chess pieces 
from the British Variant Chess Society 
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC-GM.htm

hey Michael, yes i think your right, 20 is too much, all the points you
raised are true. Pieces need room to maneuver and room to combine. I've
been looking at how many pieces should be used on a 10x10 lately, and it
seems to me that 12 (that's counting king/kings) plays pretty good. i am
hoping that 14 plays ok too, i think it does, but no doubt 12 is really
good (anything over 14 and i think the game title should start with the
word 'grand' he he).
anyway, i'd be interested to know what you conclude about the piece count
after you finish play-testing.

aww come on, now you are making me feel guilty not adding the knight lol
:)
The goal of Sky was to create a game for these 'generally not seen in
games cause of their long leap' pieces (he he). Still, where is the
knight .. well, since i released Sky, i have put together the
'root-65-leaper' (8-1), (7-4) and the 'root-85-leaper' (9-2), (7-6). I
doubt these pieces are in any game. It would be interesting to see these
leapers play, but i'm too happy with the game as it is to change, but i
could make a new variant for these 2 leapers, and maybe the knight could
sneak in with them :) One piece i would love to see in action, but i doubt
i could code this piece in, is the 'Rose'. I don't know if this piece is
in a game, you would think it would be, but i havn't seen, anyway, if
anyone could help with that then that would be awesome. 
(update)  Ralph Betza's 'Chess on a Really Big Board' has the Rose, 
i just noticed, no zrf it seems though

David, thanks for info on Rose. i did not realise it was such a strong
piece, and more complex and interesting that i originally thought. i agree
that the 'half rose' is probably more practical.
Jared, thanks also for your info on 65 leaper. Not sure what your sorry
about, am guessing that you think i will be disappointed it is in a game,
but that is ok, i will live with it :)
i'll check out leaping bat chess, thanks again to you both for info.

(please, bring the option for 'unrated games' back as soon as possible) btw, i agree, the intention was good, top points for that, i just don't know why you didn't talk to the players/members beforehand, which would of been nice, or am i wrong, did i somehow miss this conversation?

well if you don't play games Michael, your rating will drop :)
looks like mine will be dropping too he he. (i'm kinda a little shocked
by that)
not that i really care but, i must be bored, but doesn't that mean, if
you have two players that have a 'true' rating (played many rated games)
of 1500, and one of them is inactive for a bit, therefore rating drops, now
if these players play, it will be a game between 2 players where one is
higher rated than the other, where in reality, it should be a game between
equals ... wouldn't that distort ratings after outcome?
another thing, fair amount of games played are more in the spirit of
TESTING OUT A VARIANT, more than anything else. i agree with those that
said that only 'tournament games' should be rated, unless people agree
otherwise beforehand.
as far as 1500 vs 3000, and 1500 rises 750 points if wins, surely that is
too much. i agree that 3000 player should not drop 'heavily'
finally (yawn), are we going to see people less likely to put up a
challenge because of fear of someone much less rated accepting?
will this lead to 'behind the scenes' arranging of games? 
if a vote was taken, would more people want ratings than not?
sorry for length, just adding food for thought.