[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GaryK.Gifford
Joe -- No. Flags and Stones cannot swap with each other.
Joe, you seem to be the modern Guru of short range variants, so I am glad you like Six Fortresses Short Range. I have no problem with having alternative game boards to obtain 9x10, 9x11, or 9x12 versions. 9x12 would allow for the most maneuvering possibilities and might be best.
Joe, you say, 'I agree 9x12 gives you the traditional spacing, but then you have to deal with a double first step for pawns.' I ask, 'Why? They can still be one-steppers. I don't want two-stepper pawns in this game.'
Joe, thanks for thinking about the game and commenting. You recently wrote [in regard to a bigger-board variant of this games's one-step pawns]: 'People whine when the pawns are slow.' My response is, 'Be that as it may. Many whine much louder when checkmated. But we still allow checkmates. I like keeping the rules for this game constant; not change them if the pieces moved to a larger board. If it takes each pawn 1 additional move progress across the board - what is the harm in that?
Chess is far from dead when it comes down to human beings playing against other human beings. In regard to computers... yes, the silicon brains, I believe, do put a very dark cloud on many on-line games [both correspondance and real-time]. But put 2 players face-to-face in a, tournament hall, at a chess club, coffee shop, school chess work shop, or at a kitchen table and we have a great game which I imagine will continue to be played, as it is now, for a long long time to come.
Hello (zzo38) A. Black. Thanks for commenting. Yes, I just looked at your Communist Chess and then revisted my Doppelganger note from May of 2004. There I wrote: 'In the original game (the one that I awoke with) black pieces were doppelgangers relative to white pieces and visa versa. When you captured a piece both it and a matching one of yours was removed. Even promotions resulted in a promotion for your opponent.' It seems these rules would give us Communist Chess. My note continued: 'Material balance was maintained throughout the game, and it was very difficult to achieve victory. That game is a real workout and can be very frustrating. I changed the game so that each side had its own doppelgangers and by doing so created great opportunity for dynamic imbalance ... ' Anyway, I believe that you created the game independently. There are bound to be creative coincidences, especially considering the large number of variants that exist.
Hello Christine:
I had discussed contributing SHORANJI and SHORANJI Maximus with Joe -- those stand for 'Short Range Joyce Inspired' as his persistance led to their creation. Their predecessor is Six Fortresses Short Range - which Joe also talked me into creating... and no wonder, he plays it much better than I do. :(
Anyway, all 3 games are 'Short Range Projects' that you and Joe can use for inclusion in your project. Best of luck to you and Joe... and thanks to both of you in regard to your short range games dedication and endeavors. Sincerely, Gary
The work of the editors is very much appreciated, but I know it can sometimes seem that your hard work and time spent is taken for granted. I can assure you, it is not. Thanks to all of you for the great 2006 year..., and indeed, for the previous years and years to come... your hard work is greatly appreciated. In closing, here is a little Latin verse that I think can be applied to our world of chess variants, and to our lives in general: crescat scientia vita excolatur which means: 'let knowledge grow, let life be enriched'
I like the idea of the crazy Kings very much - but, how is the game won? Rule 3 states: 'The king may place himself in check, but NOT checkmate.' If the King is placed in Check by its owner, can the other side capture the King?
Thanks Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, and Joe - Abdul is correct, I mentioned the 'owner' putting his own King in check (Joe, this is not the same as your trick; different King involved). Thus, as Abdul-Rahman states, 'The player owning the king must not put his king in check . . .' - My main point then, can one win by capturing a King? Or is checkmate the only way?
I got a notice that we need to reconfirm... I'm still playing.
'Can a pawn promote to a Ferz or a Wazir ?' Good question. Yes. But I imagine such promotions will be seldom seen.
I read Jeremy's comment, i.e., 'The game listed as 'Cannons of Estonians' charming as that is, is really, I believe, Gary Gifford's Cannons of Chesstonia.' Jeremy is correct. Best regards, Gary
I found this game to be very thought provoking and enjoyed it very much. I think it plays well and can be very tricky and exciting. It is a great game that certainly has the players always thinking about Knight moves, in addition to standard chess moves. Well done, Adrian!
As indicated in David's comment... yes, the Shogi drops are a critical component of this game. David, thanks for the assessment.
Thanks for the comment, Joe. The comment about the last games being on stretched boards and this one having 'shrunk' pieces was interesting. In regard to the game itself, as pointed out in my rule notes: On 8 March 2007 Jeremy Good informed me that Heavy Gravity Chess is similar to Ralph Betza's 'Half Chess' [invented March of 2001]. And that game is similar to Mr. Betza's 'Halfling Chess.' I was aware of neither until after I made HGC. Ralph Betza kept the Knight move unchanged for his 'Hafling Chess;' but in 'Half Chess' replaced it with a 'Crab of DemiChess.' Aside from different Knights; Pawns and Kings are also different. Ralph's King and Pawns, as he stated, 'have their fighting power doubled, as compared to FIDE Chess.' In Heavy Gravity Chess, to be consistent with the concept of heavy gravity affecting all pieces, the King and Pawns have become weaker than their FIDE counter parts. Before closing: A special thanks to Jeremy Good for creating the new 'heavy' 4-move pieces used in this game. It is much appreciated. I like them very much. - Best regards, Gary
Yes, Charles - excellent point. Thank you. Jermey, can you update the pre-set to have a Wazir replace the Ferz? I think this will be a very good improvement - but, I am also adding a new rule that will allow the Wazir to transform to a Ferz (only once, and not back again). As to why Ferz was chosen over Wazir in the first place - This game, like most of mine seemed to pop into my head... and it seemed quite playable to me... the Ferz was there, and I liked how it could from e1 to a5 in 4 moves (as opposed to 8 moves for the Wazir)- still, in Heavy Gravity it makes more sense for the King longer to get there. I also like how a Ferz on c5 can stop a pawn moving from a6 to a1, but a Wazir on c5 cannot do this. But, your 'color' comment has great merit to it. And so, I have this idea: Start with the Wazir King, but, a player may, at any time during the game, while not in check, transform his King from a Wazir to a Ferz on his move... this would count as a move. This can only be done once and is not retro-active. It cannot be done while in check. I'll give you credit on the rules page for being the logical motivating force for the new set-up with the Wazir. Many thanks. Very logical. Better game mechanics.
Charles Gilman's most welcomed comments regarding the original Ferz-King not being a good choice, made their way to a three-way conversation between Joe Joyce, Jeremy Good, and myself. After the conversation we all agreed that an 'Old Monkey' would be a good replacement for the King. That piece is like a Silver Shogi General, but turned upside down. So an Old Monkey has now replaced the King, and I anticipate no additional changes to the game. Thank you, gentlemen. Gary
The main idea of the 'Old Monkey' here, representing the King (weaker from heavy gravity), was to allow the originally planned Ferz, and then to allow the backward move, not so much as a third avenue of retreat, but as a means to change square color-- which was lacking in the original concept [as Charles Gilman had pointed out]. I am not sure as to what is better, (a) using the Old Monkey, or (b) using a Wazir with allowance for it to transform into a Ferz (irreversably), when a player feels that is adviseable.
One terrible aspect of an Old Monkey, (and Ferz) of course... is that they have trouble capturing western pawns.
That's the idea Joe! Players choose their King from a set of 4 candidate Kings.... just kidding, I think.
If you like Chinese Chess, be sure to look at Korean Chess, if you haven't already. Korean Chess can be played with a Chinese Chess set, even though the later makes no use of the river. It allows for different starting setups and has more dynamics which result from subtle changes to the rules. Both games are challenging, with Chinese Chess being the game most often played in the world.
Jeremy - Thank you for your feedback regarding T.T.C. Your observations and rules of thumb are quite good and should prove to be of value to most players. And for those interested in seeing what I consider to be a very instructive game, I continue to highly recommend MSchmahl-cvgameroom-2004-77-566 from August 27, 2004.
I've been getting this message - looks like it has something to do with the flying kittens game - can't get into check or make moves: Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_STRING in /home/chessva/public_html/play/pbmlogs/fabulous_flying_kittens/judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-121-111.php on line 214
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.