Comments by GaryK.Gifford

I looked at a Cannons of Chesstonia game in progress [jejujeju-
rodriguez-2007-101-133] and was surprised to see that no Cannons were visible... This was because the players replaced he cannon images with their loaded projectile.  Though the game can be played that way, it was intended that the Cannons remain visible and that their load be displayed in the white load square (w1 for the White; x8 for Black).  Also, as a reminder, Cannons can move vertically up or down the y file for White [z file for Black] to position a launch. A 3-move sample game in the Rules shows how to load, move, and launch a cannon.  Best regards to all.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, Thank you for commenting.  Your idea would certainly work and I did think about it back when the game first appeared.  The way I imagined it was simple, accomplished by linking pawns: K and Q pawns, both B Pawns, both Knight Pawns, both Rook Pawns... each a Doppelganger to their 'linked' associate. Since Pawns change files from time to time, they would need an identifier to show Doppelganger relations. 

I prefer the idea of more player control which exists in the current version.  Note - the Doppelganger Pawns are 'not random' ... the rules state:

'If a pawn is captured, the player making the capture removes it plus any one other enemy pawn (capturer’s choice). If the removal of the second piece (or pawn) causes check to your opponent, that is fine. But you cannot capture a piece (or pawn) if removal of its counter part would put your King in check.'

As to which is the better concept (pre-determined Pawn-doppelganger or Player-selected Pawn Doppelganger), that probably is a matter of opinion, like comparing Chinese Chess and Korean Chess.  On that call, I am in the minority.

Your idea is certainly logical, has merit, and would prove easier for programmers.  I sort of like coming across games that computers do not yet play... but usually it is only a matter of time before they do.  

I seem to recall seeing a set of pieces with different colors at the bases.  Pawns of that design would work with your suggestion.

If you want-I will add the variant to Doppelganger and call it something like 'the Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Doppelganger Variant' and give you credit. You could modify the pawn Doppelganger aspect if desired, based on proximity.  There are several different pawn-link possibilities. Just let me know.  Or, if you'd like to create a separate page with your rules - as your variant of Doppelganger - I have no problem with that.  It would need its own pre-set to keep the ratings aspect fair. 

Thanks again, very much, for the comment.  Best regards, Gary

Charles - Thank you very much for the informative comment.  I am currently learning Espanol, and Aanca does not appear in my Spanish dictionaries, but I do see that it appeared in 1283, in the book 'Libro del Acedrex.' I used the 'Aanca' name because of the Ralph Betza write up about it (referenced in his Tripunch rules).  Of course, in Tripunch Ralph increased the power of Gryphons and Aancas. But I thought they were pretty impressive pieces, left as they were... and I had a strong desire to get them both into a game at some point.

It is nice to know that the Spanish were using them back in the 1200's.  When I stumbled across comments about  Jean-Louis Cazaux graphics, some comments of which were far from flattering, I could not resist looking them up... and, to my surprise, I found a certain charm to them, sort of a modest medieval atmosphere lingering over most of them.... and after I read over the piece movements and looked at many of the Cazaux graphics I had the 'Gryphon Aanca' game forming in my mind, with a few new pieces joining.  At any rate, I am glad you seem to like the game.  I am hoping to have a pre-set for it later this month and am anxious to play it at CV.

P.S. Your name of 'Archdeacon' for the 'Aanca' piece is indeed a good one.

David - thanks for suppling information regarding pieces that change.  Unlike the obvious Pawn promotions in Chess, more limited pawn promotions in Xianqi, or piece promotions in Shogi, my first piece that could transform was the Morph in Pillars of Medusa.  It started out moving as a Bishop, but it could optionally change into a [Morph of] the piece or Pawn it captured (on the turn of capture).

Several years ago I bought a Steve Jackson game called 'Proteus' - It is played on a standard 8x8 chess board.  The pieces are 8 identical cubes per player, with a different piece on each of the 6 surfaces. The pieces can rotate up or down to increase or decrease their value.  I'll not spill out the rules here, but will mention that it is one of my all time favorite variants.

The Courier Game {which I realize now is ''recognized'' - though I had somehow remained blind to it) appears to be the missing link between Shatranj and modern Chess.  This Shatranj Variant was first described in 1202. The rules page states that [the Courier Game was]''played up until the beginning of the 19th century. It was the first popular form of chess to incorporate the piece we now call the 'bishop' though it was then called the 'courier' (hence the name of the game).''

In addition to the rules for this 12 x 8 board game [which includes a ferz, wazir, afil (like the elephant), and man (non-royal King)] as we find in Shatranj, the author has included a printable cutout board and pieces.

This is a great historical page.  Well done.

David - Thank you very much for the additional naming convention information.  

Before I add a few comments I'd like to mention that on June 19, 2003, George Hodges wrote a message that relates, in part, directly to piece naming.  He was writing about pieces in the very large Tai Kyoku Shogi game.  That game includes many pieces that we find in our modern CVs.  And it seems that we our not copying these pieces on purpose, but are re-inventing them.  That we are discovering them on our own, unaware in many cases, that they already exist.  But even then, we find as Hodges wrote:
[Begin quote - George Hodges 6/19/2003]
'' Very many of the names of the pieces are now known to be quite wrong; likewise many of the moves of the pieces are also believed to be totally wrong. Consider, for example, that no fewer than 57 pieces, well known from other connected variants, are given with a quite different move! Three ancient sources are now known (as at November 2002), with numerous differences in names and moves; no two of them agree! '' [End Quote]

I found that the HUNTER, which moves forward like a Rook or backwards as a Bishop, is the same piece as the MULTI-GENERAL (Suisho) in Tenjiku Shogi.

My RETNUH, which moves forward like a Rook, but backward as a Knight, came to me while thinking about the HUNTER - I simply substituted the Bishop element with a Knight element - and so I spelled HUNTER in reverse to keep a name relation.  But, as you correctly point out, my RETNUH equals the Adrian King 1999 FIREHORSE from his Typhoon game.  

You also wrote, ''Jeff 'Cavebear' Stroud calls the Falcon a Y-Rider in his 2001 chess variant ABC Chess.'' and ''Army #2 has the [Rook+Alfil+Ferz] compound. This interesting piece cannot be found anywhere else. Eric Greenwood's variant Archabbott Chess has the[B+D+W] piece.''   

I would not be surprised to see these pieces surface in a large and ancient Shogi variant.  For example: Tai Kyoku Shogi uses a 36 X 36 board and has 11 ranks dedicated to each player's starting position. There are 402 pieces for each player (804 pieces!); and 300 different piece moves. 

You also mention,

''I like Jeff Stroud's piece name 'Y-Rider', used in Army #8. The name 'Falcon' is used in Gary K. Gifford's new variant Gryphon Aanca Chess.''

I used FALCON because that was the name Jean Louis Cazaux had used.  Since then I've also seen the FALCON referred to as a HAWKER.  As to the name Y-Rider. Yes, is fitting to the FALCON in Gryphon Aanca.  Because the FALCON gives as a true Y movement.  But there are other Y-movers (riders) and 'Rider' today, often implies repeat moves... like a Knight-Rider.

It has been said that the Aanca was a Gryphon.  However, I came across it
being defined as an 'Elephant Bird.'  

At the site: http://history.chess.free.fr/acedrex.htm we can read about
'Grant Acedrex' d'Alphonse X de Castille (from the year 1283) which
concerns the Aanca [in part], as it was part of a game being discussed.

It is written there, 'The description given by Alfonso does not
correspond to a Gryphon. This word is obviously of Oriental origin, the
arabic word anka designating a mythical giant bird often found in tales
such Sinbad the Sailor. This bird was similar to the Rok or the Phoenix.
The Aepyornis of Madagascar  could have been the inspiration. This bird is
now extinct but it is very likely that it co-existed with man in historic
times. Arabic merchants could have been aware of this animal and it is
very plausible that this was the basis for the legend.'

It is an interesting chess site.  I highly recommend it.

I have the feeling that this may be an excellent game, but I will have to play it first.  Anyway, I have such a good hunch that it is an exciting and fun variant that I just made a pre-set for it.

http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DDragonfly%26settings%3DDF

Abdul, thanks for the comment. Your idea of combining the Desert Wazir and Desert Ferz to make a Desert King is a good one.  That piece would be very powerful .... too powerful on an 8x8 board.... but it might be good on an a 12x12 board (perhaps even a 10x10).  The Desert King could make some pretty incredible jumps - switching between orthagonal and diagonal jumps on a single turn.  It could wipe out a vast army.

You added that 'Knights could also move like the Chinese Mao, but capturing an enemy piece if it happens to be orthogonally adjacent, and they can capture multiple piece at the same turn.'  Yes, there are many possibilities with this jumping theme.  And I imagine some onboard experiments should be conducted.  I think that for the 8x8 board the 4 current desert jumpers [per side] will be sufficient.  But perhaps we can have some of these knew ideas of yours implemented on a larger board?

The 8x8 preset is now available.  Thanks again and best regards. gkg

A few things here - the first two pertaining to Gryphon Aanca Chess, which I have just updated.  The third item pertains to my reduced level of involvement at CV.  

[I.] I have updated pawn movement after thinking of Jeremy Good's question to me as to why they could not move three spaces, after all, it is a 12 x 12 board.  And so, after much thought, now: (a) A pawn on a player's third rank can move 1, 2, or 3 spaces straight. (b) a pawn on a player's 4th rank can move 1 or 2 spaces straight. Pawn en passant is explained in the rules.
 
[II.] After discussing multiple movements with Sam Trenholme, though in the context of other games, I realized that the nature of the piece density and mobility of this game cried out for such movement.  Thus this rule has been added:
MOVEMENT - On each of the first five moves of the game, a player can
move as follows, providing a pawn or piece does not cross the player's 6th rank:
(a) move a combination of up to five different pawns and/or pieces [5 units total] (b) if he (or she) desires to move a pawn or piece beyond their 6th rank they can... however, they can move that pawn or piece only.

[III.] This comment only relates to CV indirectly.  I have received invites  for several games recently... but I unfortunately will not be taking on any more games... not even Catapults of Troy which I really love to play and which I received an invite for - note that I will honor my commitment to the tournament, should it get going again... but will not be able to spend much time on moves, as I did in 2005.]  The reason for declining invites and avoiding comments is that I have several writing commitments.  (a) I still edit the UON (Unorthodox Openings News electronic magazine; (b) I became 'Problem Master' for Chessville and create and send problems weekly, (c)I am editing a relatively large chess book-- hope to be done in three months) (d)I am writing science fiction short stories and a novel (you can read about this at: www.cosmicsubmarine.wetpaint.com.) That is my website and I have some art work there too, including some wooden Desert Pub Chess pieces (that game appears in the novel).  Anyway, these activities take up a great deal of time and so I've not been too active in CV lately.  Best regards to all, sincerely Gary

Chess: Giraffes, Viziers and Wizards: Variations on the Old Game
By DYLAN LOEB McCLAIN
Five years ago, Bobby Fischer said that “the old chess is dead.” Most players do not agree, but that has not discouraged people from inventing chess variants. (read the rest at the following link-- you might have to cut-and-paste. Best regards to all, Gary

LINK

I could not get in to check games... got this message:


Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_LNUMBER, expecting T_VARIABLE or
'$' in
home/chessva/public_html/play/pbmlogs/
besiege_chess/judgmentality-999999999-2007-236-476.php
on line 30

I must admit I am not clear about this contest.  On one hand I was getting the notion that there was a 45/46 square contest with freedom to design rules and pieces; on the other hand, I see a chess constraints contest which was having dimensional restrictions still being discussed.  

Perhaps there are two different topics going on within the same '2007-2008 Chess Variants Design Contest' heading? 

I made a board in anticipation of a 45/46 squares contest... I've not added pieces or rules because I am very much in the fog as to what is allowed.  Are the 45/46 squares even allowed?  Are there two contests planned?

Joe, you write, in part: '... on an 8x8, could the pieces really change?'
Then go on to say, 'I suspect it's unlikely.'  

But I see no justification for that concept.  We have many CV 8x8 boards
that have changed pieces.  I see it as only 'unlikely' if designers
throw out the possibility.  I don't think they should.  Take care.

The opening ceremony for the World Chess Championship 2007 was today.  The
first round is tomorrow.  You can read about the schedule, players, at the
site in Mexico City at:

http://www.chessmexico.com/es/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=101

This should be a very exciting World Chess Championship with several
players.  The site provides good player biographies, some notable games,
and even great combinations from the players.

In other news: China recently defeated Britain in a chess match. 
Information on that match can be found here: 

http://www.liverpoolchessinternational.co.uk/

George: Thank you for taking the time to comment.  I added a quote from you to the game notes, that being: 'As far back as Duke of Rutland's Chess year 1747 exists use of Crowned Rook(Rook+Ferz), and Logical Follow-up to Duke of Rutland's Chess recently has the Crowned Bishop(Bishop+Wazir).'

I do not see any good logic, however, to your rating the game as poor.  A thousand pages of citations and references would not change the dynamics of the game one iota.  I based the pieces on Shogi pieces... which I did mention.  And now I have added your citation.  Has the game improved because of that?  No. 

By your own logic [which I disagree with] many games would seem to be poor, including the Duke of Rutland's game.  Why, because it too lacks citations.  

You mention I have given 'No analysis, no justification, no game scores.' True, but then again, how many other CVs fall into this category?  A lot.   

The game is a simple deviation from chess, created only due to some inspiration from Joe Joyce regarding changing pieces on an 8 x 8 board.  It was not designed simply as a model for discussion in game theory... but we can discuss it in terms of Game Theory and I am sure we will not see it as 'poor.'  Instead, I believe we will find it to be dynamically rich and intellectually challenging.  But, we need to play games to prove this in practice.  I did do a rather lengthy presentation on Game Theory while obtaining my Masters Degree... I could have used this game as a model, if it existed.  As a side note, I have also studied logic and argument at the college level.  I suppose that is why I felt compelled to look at your 'logic' and argue a bit about it.

You stated , 'The inventor does not even start a game to play.'  True.  I am very busy these days: finishing up a chess book, editing the Unorthodox Openings News, writing a science fiction novel, creating chess problems on a weekly basis for Chessville, and playing in the CV tournament... plus doing things with a wife and four kids.  So, do I need to play this new game?  Would my playing it make it a better game?  Answer: No.

You also wrote, '...just throws up a Preset.'  Incorrect.  I put the preset there so the game can be played.  But, I also wrote the rules.  If I had no pre-set I imagine you would complain, 'He doesn't even give us a pre-set, so how can we play it?'  But, perhaps not.  I just can easily imagine that.

You wrote, 'Maybe it appears G Gifford only has a rather nice name [sic], 'Latrunculi' and finds any convenient embodiment as excuse to employ it.'

A nice guess, but wrong.  I suppose you are being sarcastic... regardless... the name doesn't affect the game dynamics.  I thought 'Chess 2007' did not sound as interesting as the Latin equivalent... plus, would not really be fair to the name 'Chess.'

You add, 'That one good feature, the name Latrunculi, has interesting Internet information not even attempted to be described or explained in the empty write-up.' 

Based on this comment I added this to the notes: 'Note: Collin's Latin Dictionary translates 'Chess' into the Latin 'Latrunculi.'  Elsewhere we can read that Latrunculi means 'robber-soldiers' or 'mercenaries.'   Latrunculi was actually the Roman Empire's most popular intellectual game. Many boards have been found which vary in size.  The 8 x 8 board was the most common.'

So, I added that comment... and I think it is fine to do so.  Thanks for the prompt.  But again, it does not change the actual game.

Thanks again for commenting.  Take care.

Round 1: An eight way tie exists after Round 1:
Anand - Gelfand: 1/2 // 
Grischuk - Leko: 1/2 // 
Kramnik - Svidler: 1/2 // 
Morozevich - Aronian: 1/2

Latrunculi was given a poor rating for 6 reasons or points.  Now it seems that the poor rating is reduced to one point being, 'simply because the full piece mix was used before, without even acknowlegement.'   

A point of confusion is that I acknowledged Shogi (from where I borrowed the R+f and B+w pieces.  But in an attempt to please someone I also added acknowledgement to Duke of Rutlands which is a 10 x 14 board game. The 140 square game has pieces I do not use in the 64 square Latrunculi.  It has  Concubine; Rook; Bishop.  Latrunculi has none of these and uses a standard chess board.  The two games are hardly anything alike.  I've played Duke of Rutlands, I like it.  I never even thought of it while making Latrunculi... I did think of promoted Shogi pieces.

Many games use pieces that have been used before.  Look at Chessgi. Look at The Logical Follow Up to the Duke of Rutlands (isn't that far closer to that game than is Latrunculi?) Look at Fischer Random Chess, Avalanche Chess, Maxima compared to Ultima, etc.  Look at Gothic Chess (my goodness, that one just has 2 pieces in a different position from the game it is based on).  

I have not seen this Latrunculi before.  Yes, it uses pieces we know about.  I admit it.  I admit I invented none of them.  It is a variant... we can expect that to mean it varies from something but is otherwise similar in certain respects.

Now, on a different note, I read in the recent comment, 'There are no 6-point criteria. That's silly.'  So, I guess that means Latrunculi was judeged 'poor' the first time due to 'silly criteria.' 

The Latrunculi comment preceding this one has a lot of text to it.  I could reply to all of it.  But why?  What good would it do?  In fact, I thought we had all this variant stuff out of the wash and out to dry.  I guess not.

Some basics regarding my variant - there was a complaint about references... so I added them.  There was a complaint about not discussing the Latin meaning, so I added that... neither, of which, affect game play.  Game play, interestingly enough, was not discussed.  And you think that would be important. 

How I see it:  Latrunculi duo milia et septum is a new variant that uses previously known pieces on a previously known 8x8 board.  It is a new game and has a right to exist.  Should we find that it already exists we can remove my rules and rename the pre-set.  But I have a very strong feeling that we won't find a pre-existing version.

Hopefully we can close the door on this one.  It is obvious that myself and another have strong disagreements about this game.  Can we not just admit that we disagree and leave it at that?

Round 4 results of the World Chess Championship:
We see three more draws and a win of Aronian over Leko.

Peter Svidler  ½ -  Boris Gelfand ½ 
Levon Aronian  1 -   Peter Leko  0
Vladimir Kramnik  ½ -  Alexander Grischuk  ½
Alexander Morozevich  ½ - Viswanathan Anand  ½

A pre-set has been added for this game.  Here is the link.

http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DDisintegration+Chess%26settings%3DDC

Plans are, in time, to make another preset with a board and pieces close to that seen in the rules graphic.  But the one which exists now is quite usable... one must simply remember that Windmill pieces are being used for Fye'tins.

I have not used Piececlopedia because I am not familiar with it, did not
know I could submit entries to it, or even where to access it. I think it
needs more publicity.  I found the following link using google:

http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/guidelines.html

This is an interesting notation system and should certainly be one that can be used.  In fact, if we had grown up using it it would seem very natural.

It reminded me instantly of one used by the Chinese for their Chess.  In that notation we find 3 important  directional symbols meaning: Forward, Backward, Horizontal (sideways).  So, if adopting the Chinese system we would see in the example game, instead of: 

1. P5 - n2    P5 - s2   (north 2; south 2)

1. P5 - f2    P5 - f2   (forward 2;  forward 2) [Direction is in relation to a player's first rank]

When the sideways symbol is used, then a number (for the file) accompanies it.  Thus we could see R - s2 (But be careful - because here it would mean sideways to file 2, not sideways 2 spaces.  Traditional Chinese files use numbers instead of letter designations.  

The Chinese also have symbols for the Back-most and Forward-most piece.  These are used when, for example, you have two White Rooks on the same file and need to identify which one is moving (the forward or aft piece).

When it comes to pre-sets Algebraic notation seems ideal.  Having each square (or hexagon, etc) labeled appears best to avoid confusion.  If we see e2-e4 we have no doubt as to a piece is moving from point A to point B.
When playing over Chinese games I do very well with their system [even though it is written in Chinese], but it did take me several games to have the system down well.  I expect it would be the same with this new Geographical Chess Notation.  Good job Abdul-Rahman.

Just a note: Fye'tin is written this way (Fye'tin)... I noticed the
apostrophe misplaced in the other comment.  Of course, if it turns out
that there is an ancient piece like it we would switch over to that
ancient name.

Adrian - You state: 'In the mate problem, after Ram to h1, can't the King move onto the catapult at e2?'  
Answer: Yes; And the fact that you noticed the escape is very good.  It was also pointed out by Ed (last name not known) in 2003.

In December of 2003 I commented that White's C2 Catapult should really be a 'Catapult/Pawn' combo piece.  With the piece correction White does not have that unintended escape.

Unlike newer games, I cannot access the rules page to fix it.  

Best regards, Gary

The Indian Chess Grand Master Vishwanathan Anand is the new world Chess
Champion.  He drew with Peter Leko, in the 14th [last] round of the World
Chess Championship held in Mexico City. That gave him 9 points.    I heard
that Anand was very close to losing Round 13, and was even expected to lose
- but have not verified that yet.  A tie-break round was being prepared,
but not needed.

Israeli chess grandmaster Boris Gelfand now shares the No. 2 spot with
outgoing world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik of Russia.  Both with 8
points.

Gelfand had three wins, 10 draws and one loss. Anand had four wins
and 10 draws and was the only undefeated player. Each player earned one
point per win and half a point per draw.  The match was 14 rounds. 
Gelfand's only loss was unexpected to one of the weaker players in the
field... had Gelfand won that game we would have seen a tie-break round
between him and Anad.

I just played a game of Bland Chess against myself and must give it an initial rating of 'good' as the game stands now.  Due to the diagonal restrictions I do highly recommend the following:  (a) replace Bishops with Blocks that can't move  (b) replace Queen with Rook (or maybe a Knight?)  (c) Replace King with Wazir.  (d) replace pawn images to represent the non-diagonal capable pawns.  The reason for all this in a pre-set is to make the game more user friendly.  For example... when I just played it I would occasionally want to make a diagonal move.  Correct images would discourage that illegal nature.

What I found:  (1) The Knights, as one would expect, become wonderful pieces...  This game can really emphasize the value of the Knight... good Knight play is crucial in this game. (2) The central traffic jam I expected did not take place.  Knights and Rooks could tear into the pawns because it is hard to defend 8 pawns that can't capture or protect.  (3) When one just thinks about the game, it does seem like it would be bland... but when you actually play it it seems to be rather interesting and a bit fun.  So it seems we have here, another example of 'Green Eggs and Ham.'  We need to try it before complaining about it.  We just might like it.

(zz038) A. Black - If you want I will make a pre-set for this... but if so, I would like to substitute piece images with ones that correspond to correct ortho movement... otherwise the brain keeps slipping back into chess mode.  I believe once people play your game they will see it in a whole different light.  Some may even rate it 'Excellent.'  Best regards, g

Charles, I was not aware that there was a Bland46 actually being created.  Comments of mine led to its name and actual creation from (zz038)A.Black's Bland Chess.

After playing the 64-Square Bland Chess I believe this 46-Square version needs either Knights or Modern War Machines [to replace the regular war machines.]  Personally, I like the regular Knights... but, in keeping with (zz038)A.Black's concept of no diagonals, then a Modern War Machine is possible.

You are right about the stuck pawns too.  I believe the board should change.

I will make a Bland46-NMW which has Knights with an option to replace one or both with a Modern War Machine before move 1. Also, there will be a different board.  I will author that one and list (zz038)A.Black as an inventor.

Joe, You wrote, 'Gary, it's your game then, inspired by (zzo38) A. Black.'

Response: I don't think I agree.  For one thing, I would not have made this game.  I made a few comments... just some suggestions so (zzo38)A. Black could have a contest entry.  It would be wrong for me to take Bland Chess, do a slight re-work, and submit it as my own... at least, I would not feel right about that... so I would not do it.  

For your questions:

1 - Which of these 2 people above do you [who are reading this right now] think will make the board changes and other necessary corrections?
Answer: I will do that for Bland Chess 46-NMW
2 - Whose game is it, really?
Answer: I will consider it as a dual-owner game, zz038A.Black's and mine. But, if one name were to be removed, then I prefer that it be my name that is removed.

http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DBland+Chess+46%26settings%3DLittleRiver

Here is a preset for Bland Chess 46.  To be submitted shortly via normal CV channels.

When using the substitute option for War Machines, prior to the game replace one or both War Machines as follows:

Use {.DW} to get a Modern War Machine for White; Use {.dw} for Black
Use N to get a Knight for White;  Use n for Black

zz038)A.Black -  I can send you a jpeg of the above preset to you if you want to upload it onto your rules page... or, I can send it to Jeremy if you are not familiar with uploading graphics.  Regards, g

Thanks Abdul-Rahman.  I re-read Congo rules and added this comment to my notes:  'Congo includes a river with drowning. Demian Freeling invented it 
in 1982, when he was only 7 years old!'  Prior to that I mention that he is the son of Christian.  Many thanks for the correction.

(zzo38)A.Black, I kindly disagree with two features of Bland 46, as it currently stands....which I think should be changed.

(1) You have f4 and f5 squares removed and state: 'There are 2 missing squares. Rooks are allowed to move through the missing squares...'
Problem: White can play 1. f3, 2. f3-g3 and he now has an open f-file with Rook control.  Black can do nothing about that potentially important control.
Black also has no similar file control option.
Solution: I see three possible solutions: (a) Do not allow Rooks to travel through f4 and f5 or (b) add the f4 square and remove the a4 square (or add the f5 and remove the a5 square); (c) implement both (a) and (b).
I can change the preset if (b) or (c) is decided.

(2) It is stated that the pawns are able to capture forward.
Problem: It is not so much a problem as it is an inconsistency between Bland Chess and Bland 46 Chess.  Because in normal Bland Chess, pawns 'do not capture.'  
Solution: I recommend that Bland 46 uses 'Bland Chess Pawns' (that do not capture).  They should be bland.  However, I do not mind the following statement, if employed:

'Bland Chess Pawns' cannot capture, but can promote to a Bland Chess 46 piece that can).  An exception is allowed only for the setup in which one or both players use two War Machines.  If a player uses two normal War Machines, his pawns can capture one space forward.  This ability continues even if his two War Machines should be captured.'

That rule would:
a) Keep traditional Bland Chess Pawns employed for games where players use at least one Knight or Modern War Machine in place of a normal War Machine.
b) Make for an interesting game where a side with two War Machines and forward capturing pawns fights against a side with, for example, 1 Knight, 1 Modern War Machine and no capturing pawns.  Such a game would be unbalanced and might prove challenging for players of different strengths playing against each other.

Note: I think that the forward capturing pawns aspect was added to avoid a traffic jam when knights were replaced by normal war machines.  Because the game is now flexible (with Knights and Modern War Machines possible) I think the the normal Bland Pawns need to have an opportunity to be back in their Bland Chess environment.

Best regards,,,, g

As for Shogi, it uses a 9x9 board and flat, but angled pieces. And light tiles white with black images for both players (some have red for the promotion side)

3D pieces? On our graphic systems on the PC pieces are 2D... so certainly 2d can be used for western games. For 3D game sets, tiles are best for Shogi. Also for Shogi, there are 4 fairly popular piece sets (1) Japanese characters, (2) Japanese & Chinese characters both (3) vector images (4) western style images.

Xianqi (Chinese chess) - circular pieces are desired by tradition. And, they play on line intersections instead of on the squares themselves. Purchased sets often have Chinese on one side and western images on the other. Many PC versions have an option to select Chinese or Graphic pieces.

Closing note... I sort of like the variety of pieces I see here at CV. If one wants to make something like a Universal set, then the Alfarie piece sets are likely a very good place to start(sp)

I looked at three different reviews for this CM edition to come up with this list (from a possible 12 CVs they are to have). I'd see if I could find the others but must run. So here are 11 (Note: I saw Giveaway listed- but I think that is another name for Losing Chess

1. Dark Chess, in which the opponent's pieces are invisible

2. Extinction Chess, where the winner is the first player to capture all of the opponent's pieces - - though I think that is not correct, it should be all pieces of one type (like both Bishops, both Knights, etc.

3.Losing Chess, a game that rewards the first player to lose all of his/her pieces -- I believe this game is bad for one's chess

4.Minefield, in which chess pieces are used to locate mines hidden in the board

5.Breaking the Lines, where the knight is moved to capture all of the pawns

6.Fork My Fruit, a game that uses chess pieces to fork fruit of the same kind,

7.Limited Shuffle (could this be related to FRC?

8. Shuffle

9. Marseilles

10.Progressive

11. Pocket Knight

12. ---?----

1)I sometimes come across sets that have both 3D chess pieces and flat pieces (for checkers or backgammon). So, you can have both types, i.e., 3D and 2D... you don't need to limit yourself to one type. I bought a set recently for only $9.99 that has a nice wooden box board, metal pieces (that look really cool silver and bronze in color) and has plastic Backgammon pieces. The set was made in China and I can't imagine why the price is so low...of course, the thing might be toxic :(

2)A game called Heroscape uses plastic hexes that lock together for creating a variety of 'boards.' These can be 3D (with mountains and valleys of different terrain, even rivers)... but you can also make flat hexagonal boards with them. It is a clever interlocking system.

Pillars Of Medusa is largely based on Turkish Great Chess (circa 1797), and so, is not very imaginative, on my part. I was, however impressed with Turkish Great Chess and I needed a chess-like game for a sci-fi novel I was working on. So I added a Medusa and a Morph and played around with piece-names only for the sake of the novel (I did not know there was a CV web-site).

To see how POM plays I highly recommend the strong Zillions game version created by software engineer Jason Jakupca in January of 2004 (after he and I played a few games of POM face-to-face).

I had the pleasure of watching two strong chess players play POM over-the-board [on my homemade set] while a crowd gathered around. One player was from Russia, the other from Venezuela - so the game had the feeling of some important championship. The crowd and players all seemed to be quite impressed with the game. Mainly Medusa play... that was the real excitement.

It has been my experience that 'a game where pawns simply get picked-off' does not happen.

Often good Medusa play will decide the game. The Medusa is not to be underestimated. I believe Tony Q. missed a win against me in my first POM game here (at CV) by missing a strong Medusa move.

Again, to get a good idea of game play, I highly recommend playing against Jason's Zillions application. I think you will find it to be a fun and challenging game... and that you may have a hard time beating the Z engine.

(a) kindly ask for Mr. Duke's permission

(b) simply use the earlier Bison.

The excellent Bison piece can move twice like a Ferz and then once like a Wazir (or visa versa) in an outward direction from its starting point. And it can jump! (the Falcon can't jump, but can zig-zag around in different ways, to give the appearance of jumping)

Anyway, the Bison is easier to use and would be my preferred piece, of the two.

But I re-read Charles Gilman's comment and I see that he is also correct in his observation because in looking at a cell's mechanics it does function as a hexagon. Bending out the long edge with a point where the line meets at the center will give you the hexagon in appearance (without the bend it remains a hexagon in function. R Wayne Schmittberger had demonstrated how circular cells can also end up making hexagons... Anyway, it is a clever idea.

The game looks very nice but I'd need to play it before rating it.

The piece graphics are from a Chinese Chess program I've seen. And so I think that program should be credited for the use of their graphics.

In closing, the board is very clever and the piece movements should allow for an interesting game.

Happy New Year to All.

Joe, Good luck with your new short range project.  On a somewhat related
note: BordahBee; BordahBee Doppelganger Extreme, and Split Phase Tri-chess
also involving piece transfers to other boards.

I believe that the Janus pre-set has the Kings and Queens reversed.  Although the reversal looks natural, the rules state: '... the king is at the left of the queen, so the queen still starts at a square of her own color.'  I do not think it matters much for the tournament... However, for a serious Janus player who would be familiar with openings it could be an issue.  I know that I would not like to play Fide Chess with Kings and Queens reversed.

To the Tournament Director:  I see that I have a game invite with Matthew
Vallee.  I see a lot of other players have games with him too.  Are these
Tournament 3 Games?  I do not care to play other games while the
tournament is going on.  But, if it is a tournament game I need to know...
Thanks.  Gary

P.S. My Google search for 'online chess' showed 3,180,000 results.