[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by JaredMcComb
In order to call check, the piece must have already been moved and your turn must be over. If, afterwards, you decide that the check is a 'bad move,' you are still stuck with it, as moves cannot be taken back according to the laws of Chess.
Congratulations! How did you choose the name, Paloma? And what does it mean?
I'm willing to take on THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM. It most certainly can be done, and I believe I shall try.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Thanks for your comment and rating. I have noticed a large error in the paragraph by the first wizmate example. The wizard on the left can only execute wizmate by moving southeast. The wizard on the right can only execute wizmate by moving directly west or southwest. Therefore, there are only three possibilities, not eight as I had assumed before taking the king's black-line route into account.
I would just like to point out that I had used Platinum Generals in my previous game, Dai-Ryu Shogi. That being said, I think it is wonderful that someone else likes the concept (and even the name) enough to use them, regardless of whether they independently created them. I hope to try this game soon, preferably via ZoG.
Fergus, I won't claim to be an artist, and in truth I haven't even looked at the pieces you're talking about up close, but it sounds to me like those white edges would be due to antialiasing against a white background that they were created on. Couldn't you edit them out pixel by pixel? Admittedly that would be time consuming, but it would look much nicer. Just my two cents.
Omigosh omigosh Daleks! I love it -- truly classic stuff.
<p>Daleks move like Kings and will always move orthogonally towards you if
you are on the same rank or file and diagonally towards you otherwise.
Also you can opt to stay put for a turn, instead of moving. Also, teleporting moves you to a completely random space.
<p>I have a Daleks clone around here somewhere that makes you a smileyface
and the Daleks into generic robots, but some of them (red ones) move two
spaces in one turn.
Also check out <a href='http://www.chessvariants.org/shogivariants.dir/kishogi/kishogi.html'>Ki Shogi</a> for a boardless game.
I have a copy of Gollon's book. I can check this out later today. EDIT: Checked it. The book I'm using is Gollon's Chess Variants Ancient, Regional, and Modern, first edition. According to this book, the starting position and stalemate rules are correct. However, the promotion rule listed here is inaccurate. First of all, pawns do not promote to the piece which started on the promotion space, but to the 'master piece' of that file. In other words, the piece of yours that started in that file is the one that determines promotion, not the one of the opposing army. This only has ramifications in the central two files. Gollon's rules also require the actual piece that started in the file to which the pawn will be moving to have been lost, not just a piece of the type. (The example given is that a pawn cannot promote in the C file until his elephant which started in the C file has been lost.) Additionally, according to Gollon, a pawn may not even move to the last rank unless it is able to promote, which is not stated here.
The falcon is similar to a non-leaping Camel + Zebra, except that each move has one of three paths it must follow. In order to say that something is a non-leaping, you must define its movement pattern. Just saying 'non-leaping knight' does not imply that you are using a Mao, or a Moa, or a piece that moves two orthogonally and one orthogonally outward, or even a piece that moves three orthogonally and one diagonally back! All of them have the same end result, but none of them get there the same way.
I didn't say your interpretation was wrong. I was trying to imply that the n in funny notation does not really make sense when we apply it to hippogonal pieces (such as the knight, camel, zebra, etc.) since it does not intrinsically imply the unblocked path a piece must take. By 'move' in my previous comment, I meant 'the device by which a single piece may end the turn on a square different from the one it started on.'
Interesting point. I would think the game would be a draw in that scenario.
I do find it enjoyable, myself. Of course, having played two games with its inventor may have helped...
The rating is for the new layout of the page. One thing I find annoying about it, though, is the way the page instantly jumps to a certain spot whenever you click on anything. In my opinion, it would be easier to navigate if it just sat where it was.
'The three Knights are therefore complementary to each other in a similar sense to the two Chess Bishops which operate on complementary squares.'
<p>Technically incorrect. Each bishop in FIDE chess can eventually reach exactly one half of the board. The King's Lancer and Knights can eventually reach any square on the board; the Queen's Lancer cannot.
I am going to offer my interpretation/variant of the rules here. This is assuming each player has their own distinct set of quantae, which is how it looks the game is played from the opening setup on this page. A piece is not defined until it is moved, regardless of whether it can be deduced as something or not. In other words, the cycle is not complete until every quantum on the board has moved and been defined. When you move a piece as a rook or bishop, you may choose to define it as a queen, but you must define it as such immediately after moving it. Once a piece of yours has been captured, it's captured, and you can no longer define a quantum to be that particular piece (of course, if you had two of them, and one was captured, you can still use the other one). If a quantum is captured, we don't know what it was going to be, so after every piece of yours has been defined, all the other ones that are still left are considered captured and given to your opponent. Of course, immediately after the last quantum has moved, the cycle ends and each quantum suddenly has the moving power of all the pieces you have left. In other words, I'm for Full Actual resets, but I don't understand fully the difference between Field and Player, so I can't say which I have just stated I prefer. The reason I like this method of play is that it more closely resembles FIDE chess because once a piece is captured, it's removed from play, so for example you can't redefine another quantum to be your Queen if you've already lost your Queen. Just my 2 cents.
The link is no longer valid. It works, but the game is no longer where it used to be.
Perhaps the editors are wary of uploading the 10th entry to this contest because they think that being the 10th entry will give it some sort of intrinsic advantage? ;P
<p>Seriously, though, what's going on?
Or you could use rooks to represent knights, and knights to represent rooks, and turn one rook upside-down. Or one knight could be tipped on its side. The possibilities are vaguely endless. In all seriousness, this game does sound interesting, if minimal in overall variantage. Whatever happened to the modest variants listing? There have been quite a few variants posted lately that could probably go there. Maybe it's time for an overhaul of said listing.
It seems to me that no comments from the 10 Contest page are showing up in the main listing. There are quite a few confused people there waiting for things to happen. On that note, perhaps a priority ought to be made to update the contest, especially since the deadline is not very far away.
Is the contest even still going on? I also have an entry in limbo, plus
the commenting system for the contest's page seems to be broken (see my bug report below).
This isn't some sort of dramatic foreshadowing of the closing of the CVP in the near future due to lack of available manpower, is it? Because if it was, that would be, like, y'know, *totally* uncool.
I think that whatever system we choose to use in the near future, we'll just need more editors to run it. Also, I think the wiki idea wouldn't be that great. If you want a CV Wiki, enter some pages into the Wikipedia. I'd volunteer to be an editor, myself, if I knew enough HTML to be useful.
This needs to be added to the contest index. Perhaps it would be possible in the future to add 'this is an entry to thus-and-such contest' flags to the submission page? Of course a check would have to be used to see whether 2 entries have already been submitted by the same person.
Page slightly clarified in Rules and Notes. Also, thanks to whoever added it to the contest index. I trust that my other entry, Countdown, was received, and if it would be more convenient I could attempt to upload it using 'the form.'
I edited Yagbap after the deadline only to clarify a couple of things, and didn't actually change the rules as listed. I think that the best thing to do would be to somehow remove the edit option on all the pages for the duration of the contest, if that's possible, and then add them back on when the contest is finished.
I previously stated that I would be willing to post my other entry via 'the form'. However, due to a massively underestimated schedule overload (a.k.a. 'last two weeks of school'), I will be unable to do so until no earlier than a week from this Wednesday, and most likely not until Thursday or later.
Oops. Yes, the board is 10 by 10, although the document itself does not reflect that.
I would think that it's based on Cartesian distance, as in Maximummer Chess.
In the Credits, Etc. section, the 2 in '102' and the 3 in '103' should be superscripts.
I believe that what Mr. Nalls is getting at is that it almost seems that someone is trying to get SPC to do well in the contest by giving it lots of Excellents under different names. Admittedly, I had been wondering myself. I'm not pointing any fingers right now, but whoever it is seems to be getting a little silly. Dead men, after all, do not have internet access.
I had an idea very similar to this one ages ago but completely forgot about it! Good to see it being fleshed out.
I'm just wondering, for those of you who consider yourselves active members here, how old are you? We all know Hans is in his 40s, but that's all. What kind of age range is this group in as a whole?
Hey Greg, you lost your bet. ;) I'm 19. Sorry to be so late, computer troubles. Wow, y'all are geezers. :P
Thanks for the offer! I'll email you ASAP. No, I don't have the Yonin page up -- in honesty, I haven't even started it yet. I may upload a quickie version using the new form, but don't expect it to be all that great. (It'll be an English resource, though, which is what matters, and besides, I can edit it later!)
The comment directly below this one is mine. Oops.
Page updated. Ed, could you please provide your last name so you can be properly credited?
Can Promoters capture? And can Promoters promote? If so, does a Promoter that promotes a Promoter which previously promoted pieces prolifically pay a pretty penny? Perhaps a pound? Perhaps in practice Promoter promotion proliferates profusely, as the Promoters are positioned in proximity preceeding each play's premiere.
Promoter promotion is prohibited? Perfect. I personally prefer the prohibition of prehension of pieces by Promoters, as it places the promoters in a pacifistic position where their perilous promoting power is best placed in proximity to pieces of your own. Why pick off pieces when your position is productive for the other player?
Not to be nitpicky, but the plural of Pokémon is Pokémon. 'Pokémons' sounds rather odd, to me anyways. *has a brother who used to watch the cartoon all the time*
It may be helpful on each of the automated voting pages to have 'See Also:' links only to the games in that particular group.
Roberto, I'd like to point out that as of right now, when one Googles 'chessvariants,' the first related page that comes up under the main listing is this Xiang-Qi page. If that isn't a good indicator of this game's popularity variant-wise, if not game-wise in general, I don't know what is. (Incidentally, a search for 'xiangqi' gives this page second in the list, and a search for 'xiang-qi' or 'chinese chess' gives it first.)
When attempting to use one of the voting pages, I get a screenfull of the following: Warning: main(/home/chessvar/public_html/cgi-bin/rankedpoll/runpoll.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/chessva/public_html/contests/10/poll1-A.php on line 26 Warning: main(/home/chessvar/public_html/cgi-bin/rankedpoll/runpoll.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/chessva/public_html/contests/10/poll1-A.php on line 26 Warning: main(): Failed opening '/home/chessvar/public_html/cgi-bin/rankedpoll/runpoll.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/chessva/public_html/contests/10/poll1-A.php on line 26 Perhaps this should be fixed.
The links to Taratibu and veSQuj seem to be missing. Furthermore, the link to Shatranj Kamil 64 should point to http://www.chessvariants.org/contests/10/shatranjkamil64.html instead of where it does now.
'Ostentatious Chess' sounds like a good name for an upcoming submission of mine. ;)
What's going on, anyway? There's been no announcement of a second round of voting.
I have one as well, but have used it so much that the low-quality included cardboard board is starting to fall apart. Not that I'm selling it, of course -- just be wary you may have to find someplace that will make custom gameboards to replace yours, if you find one used. (The pieces, on the other hand, are lovely. Quite heavy, plastic, and felt-bottomed. Very sturdy.) What's all this about selling the property rights? Hopefully someone interested in selling high-quality sets will purchase it -- in my opinion, Omega Chess is one of the best variants in existence!
How come one player has two GoldenKeyboards and the other player has one each of Golden and Plastic? Was this intentional?
I would think that having each player have two of the same thing would still qualify as different armies, but whatever.
Furthermore the game has 'Chess' in the title. ;)
Probably not too similarly, but it's certainly a good idea. This reminds me, I've been meaning to make a SSBM-styled variant.
The only thing related to 'reclaiming a queen' in Chess is the promotion of a pawn to a queen. For this to happen, the pawn must reach the final row of the board, from its owner's perspective - in other words, get your pawn all the way to the other side of the board, and you can promote it to a queen. (Additionally, the term 'reclaiming' is a bit inaccurate here, because it is possible to get more than one queen by doing this multiple times.)
I have to wonder whether I should be honored for being included in this, or insulted for having something I created be the basis for a section. (Note: this comment is in jest. Kinda.)
Extremely awkward. The Tripper, Commuter, Threeleaper, and Fourleaper (and Lancer, to a lesser extent) are all bound to a small subset of squares on any size board, and the remaining pieces can be difficult to utilize well due to their large and inflexible movement patterns. This is my opinion, of course.
I think it would look best with the colors of the wooden one, but without the texture. Just my two cents.
But but but... the big-eared person with a tie over his nose was just so charming!
Thanks for catching that -- it should be 11 per side. One thing which has just occured to me is that I never defined how much damage Clerics should take -- they're supposed to always take 2 damage (3 if the attacking piece has a same-color bonus) but I apparently never wrote that down anywhere. D'oh. Pieces should be able to move through spaces occupied by friendly pieces only, as in Vantage Master Online, which the game was originally based on. This was also never written down explicitly. Double D'oh. As for the spirit spamming issue, the self-destruct can become valuable in a situation like that -- once your spirit is about to die, you can do extra damage to 'the wall,' and eventually break a hole in it -- if they're really trying to keep up a wall they won't use it themselves, which gives you an advantage. Did you take this into account? (Just the same, I will consider revising the summoning rules.) Is there any way this page could be converted into a 'member-submitted' page so I could edit it?
New (blank) page created here. Please copy the comments over as well, if possible. Thanks!
Er, you can never attack your own pieces -- the description for the action specifies that -- so the only way you can damage your own pieces is to get them caught in a self-destruct's radius. And you can self-destruct with more than zero health, if you like. And the only piece that can heal other pieces is the cleric, and they can only heal one other at a time, so unless they have their cleric behind the wall, the wall will most likely retaliate.
The root-65 leaper is known as the Bat in Leaping/Missing Bat Chess. Sorry.
Is it just my computer or is the diagram a little squooshed?
If I may clarify Larry Smith's clarification: When one piece captures another, the capturing piece gets all the captured piece's moves, except for those it already had, which it loses instead. It's a bit of a 'toggle' if you will. I tried to say that almost immediately after this game was posted but for some reason the comment system decided it hated me.
It's too expensive for me too -- although my brother and I would love to get into it. I guess we'll have to wait for a video game release. ;)
It's a shame, really -- I always liked the word 'quintilliard.'
'Gary, I believe that Manabu Terao and Manabu Terao are two different people as much as I believe that Gus Duniho and Fergus Duniho are two different people.' No offense, but you could have saved some time and just said that in the first place. ;)
I would like to nominate Yonin Shogi. It is a very capable (not to mention enjoyable) adaptation of the classic Shogi for four players, and its handling of check and mate is unique and opens up a strategic level not available in most other four-handed games.
No offense, but I'd prefer that the ZRF for this game reflect the rules correctly. Not being very adept at programming myself, would you mind doing this 'hacking' and updating the file accordingly? Also, does this require Zillions 2.0 to work properly? I haven't got that so I won't be able to play this myself if it does.
Whoops, I didn't think that I shouldn't nominate it because I made the page. I thought that I could do so because I didn't invent the game. As for its popularity, it was made into a Super Famicom (Japanese SNES) game (not many CVs are besides Chess and Shogi), although the rest of your argument sort of makes this a moot point.
I don't get it. Could someone help explain this to me? A diagram or two would be helpful as well.
So basically, any neutral piece that is attacking any non-neutral piece becomes yours at the end of your turn?
Okay, I get it now. Thanks for your help, guys. It's a great idea but I'll have to try it out before I can give it a proper rating.
Oooh, I like this idea! Can someone ZRFolize it?
So it looks like Looney Labs is discontinuing the single-color stashes in favor of their new 'Treehouse' system. Single-color stashes will still be available in their online store, while supplies last - but they do have Cyan available. Linkage: http://www.looneylabs.com/whybuy/treehouse.html
I am considering a 9x9 version of this game. In the meantime I encourage people to play this one and give me their thoughts.
Yes, I probably could -- if I could program Zillions files.
The zebra has stripes but the tiger has none... ???
'Wow, let's use really big numbers to try to impress people!'
I've just received a custom Omega chessboard which I ordered awhile back. It is made of quarter-inch plywood, laser-etched and stained. I hope to post some pictures soon, especially if there is any interest. ;)
I already had an Omega set, so of course I had the pieces for it. I
ordered a board because the cardboard board that came with the set has
been used so much that it is starting to fall apart.
As for cost, it was... expensive. ;)
Poor in part to counteract the excellent, but mostly because that is my opinion. The game is needlessly complicated and too confusing to learn, and in addition, the page and diagram are just plain ugly. And I believe Andy is correct in saying that Nicholls' arguments are both condescending and outrageous, although I'm not sure that the LoTR series qualifies as 'second-rate.' (I really need to go read 'em...) At the community college that I graduated from, there was a student association called 'Writers' Guild,' where students and faculty could bring things that they had written and get opinions on them. The one major rule there was, after reading something you wrote, you couldn't defend it while other people critiqued - and it WORKED. I believe that this community could almost definitely improve if people here acted by this rule for a while after their articles are posted.
'As a final note, a 'you can't reply to criticism to your game' rule would stop a lot of flame wars here. Then again, it would also give trolls who just want to hurt people's feelings more power.' Which is why it shouldn't be strictly enforced - the Internet is much more open than a small room with a dozen people in it and so there should be a little leeway, or an option to disregard the thing altogether. And besides, if a game is truly good, it will show through peoples' opinions, not through some interweb troll's offensive comment.
To Mr. Gilman: there is a reason that I suggested people try to disclude Recognized variants. ;)
There is a typo in the diagram - one player has no Silver - and by 'W' you mean Lance, right? Haven't tried it yet but it seems that the large number of long-range pieces will overpower the game more than in Yonin Shogi. Plus it doesn't have the rules Yonin does about handling check and mate, which IMO is the best way to do it - but on the other hand, entirely removing the pieces of a defeated player from play seems like it might make the endgame more interesting and help control the large number of long-range pieces. (Question: are the mated player's in-hand pieces also retired from play?)
...So what happens if you stick a Tardis inside another Tardis? :P
I wonder whether this concept would work better in a hexagonal setting...
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.