Comments by GerdDegens

@Fergus: 
Can you please take a look at 'Pattern Chess'. A publication should be possible - right?

Sorry, I hope it fits now.

For the King, you need to describe castling with writing, not just a diagram. For the Double Knight, it's not clear whether it gets two Knight moves in the same direction like a truncated Nightrider, or if it can leap directly to a space two Knight leaps away.

I have tried to implement this.

Thank you!

Hi Bob,
an interesting approach, multi-layered and engaging.

But one thing interests me: can you play it? I don't think I'm capable of it!

In my opinion, it's a matter of mathematical models that defy human understanding. Beautiful, complex and hardly playable. Who wants to dig into the subject?

But it is certainly an interesting construct.

Hi Lev,
I must try to understand your question.

Which version of Conquer it supports?

There is only one version of 'Conquer'. Which versions do you mean?

Sry your Conquer GC preset supports checkmate or nope?

Of course checkmate is the goal. But our game shows me that the problem of perpetual recaptures hardly ever leads to a result. The diagonal capture possibilities of the pawns are particularly annoying. I have to improve this somehow.

If you agree, I'll finish the game and get back to you with an adapted version that avoids the perpetual recaptures. I fear that this cannot be fully achieved.

"Angular"

 - on Game Courier / Invitation here

"Crossfire 90 Degrees"

 - on Game Courier / Invitation here

Promotion of the lancer on ranks 1 and 9.
Promotion of the double dart does not take place. 

@ H.G. or/and Fergus
The following HTML code does not seem to be translated correctly into GAME code for Game Courier. In the Play Test Aplet everything works fine, in GAME Courier the promotion zones of the files 'a' and 'i' are not recognized. There seems to be a problem somewhere. Can you please help!

<script type="text/javascript" src="/membergraphics/MSinteractive-diagrams/betza.js?nocache=true"></script>
<div class="idiagram">
files=9
ranks=9
promoZone=1
promoChoice=SNBRQ
graphicsDir=/graphics.dir/alfaeriePNG/
squareSize=50
graphicsType=png
symmetry=none
lancer (vertical):P:fmFfWfnDfcnH:pawn:d1,e1,f1,,d9,e9,f9
morph=*********////////
lancer (horizontal):S:rmFrWrnDrcnH:berolinapawn:b2,b3,b4,b5,b6,b7,b8,,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,h7,h8
morph=*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*
knight:N:N:knight:a3,a7,,i3,i7
bishop:B:B:bishop:a1,a9,,i1,i9
rook:R:R:rook:a2,a8,,i2,i8
queen:Q:Q:queen:a4,a6,,i4,i6
king:K:K:king:a5,,i5
</div>

Thanks again!

@ H.G.
I would like to declare files (in my case 'a' and 'i') as a promotion zone for pawns. Is that possible?

@Fergus
Is it possible to prevent the board from flipping in Game Courier? With 'Crossfire 90 Degrees' the board rotation doesn't seem to be particularly necessary.

Thank you both.

"Black Holes"

 - on Game Courier / Invitation here

At first sight: I haven't understood it yet and will think about it. Thank you in the meantime.

@H.G.. 
Can a figure be displayed in a third color (not white, not black) in the Play Test applet (without separate programming)? Thanks in advance.

"Crossfire"

 - on Game Courier / Invitation here

It seems unfair to discriminate against such variants by delaying their publication.

It makes no sense to 'deny' the existence of Interactive Diagrams just because there is a very vague assumption that the publication of others will be delayed.

It would just be another item that is asked for in the Index Informtion. And I don't think that has anything to do with discrimination and unfairness.

This is the well-known problem of claim and reality not matching. Structuring a page according to 'Introduction', 'Setup', 'Pieces', 'Rules' etc. does not seem to solve the problem.

The problem of a small number of editors and a large number of authors is inherent in the system and can hardly be solved either. Whether a kind of 'purgatory' could be the solution here, dear Jean-Louis, is again a question of internal organization.

In my view, interactive diagrams and their moving diagrams could contribute to solving the problem. On such a basis, it should be much easier for editors to revise proposals.

I think it could be communicated that proposals based on interactive diagrams are preferred for review. And editors could use the time saved in this way more for proposals without such diagrams.

Could make the problem easier.

If limiting the number of variants to be submitted were really a measure to improve quality, then it would make more sense to reduce the number. But that would have a demotivating effect.

But I think Kevin's suggestion - if I understood him correctly - is a very good one, namely to set up a kind of test page where interactive diagrams can be stored under 'Notes' in order to save them for later. There you can test your variants and compare your ideas. In my opinion a good solution.

Where are we now? Will everything stay the same? Or are there partial improvements for authors?

The information does not help: no indication of quantity and time. It can't just be a matter of waiting. A little too much randomness.

Surely a pragmatic solution must be possible?
 

I suggest that the number of proposals be increased to 10 or 15.

Your argument is - with respect - illogical. Whether authors submit more or less has no effect on the capacity of the editors. The editors work off what they can . If authors submit more, then they just have to wait longer. But at least they can continue working.

Dear H.G. This is only true if the authors are very unevenly creative, because only then can you level out an issue. But who publishes a countless number of variants?

All in all, the matter is not evenly distributed; the editors are the tug on the scales.

O.K., if you say that these are the general conditions, then any discussion is superfluous. But you don't seriously want to take such a one-sided view.

Sorry Bob, I can't follow your argument.

When the editors decide to publish variants is beyond our control. That could be tomorrow or in three months' time.

They (the editors) can feel comfortable to take action. But why should I be prevented from continuing to be creative?

To the editors: I would like to present further variants. Unfortunately I can't, as only a limited number of suggestions are possible.

It would therefore be nice if a few of my suggestions could be published - or rejected.

On this occasion: Why is the number of unpublished suggestions limited?

I am grateful for the code to turn off the display of captured pieces - I added it and it works.

...I think you want to add the captured piece to the origin square of the piece that moved and flip its side. 

This is exactly the goal of Conquer. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the required code should look like - I'm not a programmer ( you remember: 'That's a part of life. We don't all have the same capabilities or inclinations').

Do you have any idea what the codes might look like? Would be nice if.

I understand that, but the following simple situation can't be right:

Instead of 32 pieces, there are now only 31 pieces on the board. That doesn't fit with Conquer.

If I understand correctly, no captured pieces may be displayed (and removed from the board) in Game Courier, as all captured pieces are added to the capturing party (in Conquer, of course).

Hopefully I have implemented it correctly.

It works, but not always, as the captured pieces show.

[Edit] I have now played a few games where there were no problems.

[Edit, Edit] Now another game with captured pieces. 

...to go this way I can tell you what you should add to a preset for 'nocastle' chess automated with the Play-Test Applet in order to make it play Conquer.

I would like to go this way, but I can't get any further with the preset for 'nocastle' chess. Where am I wrong?

Sounds good, but it doesn't help much.

If I see it right, it all comes down to a certain amount of randomness.

There are some who can do everything, so to speak, and others who try to get by. Somewhat distributed chances, in my opinion.

Perhaps also an aspect of the selection for 'Featured Chess Variants'.

I can follow your reasoning.

I personally have a clear interest in being able to play my variants on Game Courier, or to make them available. But what happens if the author can't manage the programming?

I would like to play 'Conquer' and my interest is to see how potential opponents cope with the variant. I'm not interested in being nominated for 'Featured Chess Variants', but there is still a certain challenge.

What can you tell candidates like me about it?

Are there any conditions for participating in 'Featured Chess Variants'? Certainly yes! Which ones, where?

The deletion and reinstallation of a variant cannot be the solution for this - or can it?

Too bad. This means that authors need to think carefully about what to name their variant.

Should perhaps be communicated somewhere.

In my case it means that a variant cannot be published because of a name similarity.

Kind of dumb.

@Fergus
I have the following problem:

When a page is created under 'Post Your Own Game' and a name is assigned to the variant in the 'Index Information', it seems that the name cannot be changed - at least I haven't found a solution for this.

What I mean is that if there is a working title, a new name in the 'Index Information' in the 'Item Name' field is not taken over. This means that the outdated working title appears unchanged in the 'Your Unpublished Submissions' and in the list of published variants.

Is there a solution for this that can be done not only by the editors?

Thanks for the response.

But perhaps for clarification: I would like to delete an unpublished variant.

When I try to do that I get the following error message: 'As a safety precaution, you may not use this script to delete a submission unless it is empty. Delete its content first if you mean to delete it'.

The page is without content and deleting it does not work. Unfortunately, nothing has changed here yet.
 

I may have overlooked some things. But in the explanations I did not find any indications for the deletion of an (unpublished) variant.

@Fergus
It seems that I can only accumulate 6 unpublished variants. Then the message comes that for more variants unpublished variants must be deleted first.

When I try, the message appears that only variants without content can be deleted. If I delete the content (including images), then the variants cannot be saved due to lack of content.

This is quite frustrating.

Can you please tell me how to delete unpublished (or published) variants. Thank you very much.
 

Would like to enter a variant in the system. Note: If there are more than 6 entries, other entries must be deleted. Deletion does not work - empty pages cannot be saved.

The matter is not very user friendly, what can be done?

@H.G.
Could you kindly help me:

I have been trying to get my variant 'Conquer' onto Game Courier for some time.

The function 'Paste an existing diagram:' in your 'Play-test applet for chess variants' can't be realized via the indirect way of 'Notepad' - thanks for the tip, would have been nice if!

I have the impression that the variant brings a slightly different speed to the already existing variants.

If I am not wrong I would be glad if you could point out the way to Game Courier. Thank you very much.

My new variant on a 12 x 12 board called Queenmania.
 

@H.G.
The following error message appears in the Game code for Game Courier:

Is there a solution for this? Thanks in advance.

'Queens' on Game Courier!

I would like to present my new variant 'Queens' for discussion.

@H.G.
After my first trials with the 'Play-test applet' and the conversion to Game Courier thanks to the game code provided by the play-test applet, I have tried my luck with my other variants. To be honest, I am quite stumped and very sure that I will never get it right. Hence my question - better request:

Would it be very naughty to ask you to provide me with the HTML-codes you have already created? This would be for the variants Avatar Chess, Borderline, Bull's eye and Conquer. It would be great if I could make the variants playable in my pages with your help. (If yes via e-mail perhaps?)

If that is too much to ask, then please forget my request.

@H.G.
Short feedback: The 'Move definition aid' is a great tool. To get the Betza string for the Enhanced Pawn finally working it was necessary to define the standard pawn first and then to add the enhanced capturing possibilities. This probably has something to do with the en-passant rule. Maybe that is self-evident for the insider, for me it took some time. Anyway, the following string finally worked: fmWifmnDfceFscWbcF

That said, your small image seems to have worked. Perhaps the data of the image itself works, but for larger images you run into comment length limits in the scripts/database?

Yes, that's how it will be. Thanks Ben.

EPC on Game Courier.

I've been trying to reply for some time, but I can't get more complex answers with pictures posted. What could be the reason for this?

Update: The (error) message looks like this:

@H.G.
In the explanations for the Play-test applet for chess variants, under Automating Game Courier/GAME-Code, it says: 'You will have to tick the checkbox "Do not include moves in code" just above the Pre-Game section'.
In the Game Courier Preset I don't find this checkbox and what happens if the checkbox is not ticked?

EPC now interactive playable.

Indeed, the Play-Test applet seems to be ingenious. You just have to understand the Betza notation, which is what I'm dealing with at the moment.

You said that in the play-test applet you only have to change the pawn movement to fmWcFscW. Do I understand correctly that this notation does not take into account the pawn's initial move? Shouldn't the notation then be written completely as follows: ifmnDfmWcFscW ?

Hadn't worked with either Game Courier or Play-Test Applet so far. I have started with Game Courier and would like to start with Play-Test Applet afterwards. I would be happy if it were a little easier to get to grips with.

Surely a GAME code already exists for Standard Chess; where can I find it (maybe a stupid question)? I would then modify the pawn move as you advised - thanks for that.

@Fergus:
I am trying to bring my variant 'Enhanced Pawn Chess' to Game Courier. I have created the preset, which still runs with the include file 'chess2.txt'. Actually, I intended to save this file under the name 'EnhancedPawnChess.txt' and then modify it in the segment 'Pawn Capturing' according to the enhanced rules. But I am not sure if such a procedure is desired.

My real problem, however, is to modify the game code so that it fits my variant. Despite the 'Developer's Guide' and 'How to Enforce Rules in Game Courier' I can't manage - the latter lists the subroutines for white Pawn Mouvment and Pawn Promotion, but how to adapt is the question! I am working on it, but it will take time.

At this point I would be grateful if I could get help in modifying the pawn rule.

I have adapted the description of my variant.
Thanks for the comments.

@ H.G.:

No, that is not what "more moves per turn" means. You just give a choice between more moves, but the player can play only one of those. In Progressive Chess you would be able to move 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... different Pawns each turn.

You're way ahead of me there. Instead of two fields, the pawns can now conquer 6 fields. How else would you call the increase "progressive". What is your term?

@ Bob:

... Maybe they could be called Power Pawns?

I have little interest in new figures. I am interested in the further development of standard chess - a rather chanceless endeavour.

@ Ben: Thank you for your kind comment.

When you say: 

"Progressive" in variants usually means increasing moves per turn; the title could be confusing.

then exactly your statement happens, namely that the pawn now has 6 possibilities instead of two to capture.

@ H.G.:

What does it mean: "is obsolete"? If you mean "not allowed in this variant", then better say it. Because there are plenty of people that wouldn't see any harm in doing obsolete things...

Here I do not understand you. 'Obsolete' does not mean 'out of date', but redundant. With my variation, the 'en passant' rule becomes unnecessary.

Apparently little interest in my variant. Nevertheless, I ask for publication.

No further comments on my variant? Then I would be happy if it were published.