[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by JohnLawson
But where is the Schnorer? Or the Bromeliads?
My daughter has raised the question, 'If there are Headless Rhinos, why are there no Rhino heads in the Box?' I suggested that they had been reduced to Crumbs, but this explanation was rejected on the grounds that the rest of the Rhino would also be Crumbs.
The link to the picture of the Piazza San Marco is broken.
If drunken humans see pink elephants, do Drunken Elephants see pink humans? And what about diversity?
I noticed the unobtrusive random page link a few days ago, and I wanted to let you know that I really like it. The CVP has become so huge that there is no way one can remember everything on it. The random page allows for serendipitous discovery and adventure.
To indicate 'stinky' in notation, how about '*'? And to indicate being run over by the Train, how about '_'? I live a few score miles from PA SGL 312, and I have never seen any critter (aside from a Hunter) carrying lunch in a brown paper bag. Sometimes the brown paper bag contains appropriate liquid refreshment, like Wild Turkey. I try to imagine strategies and tactics, and my mind fogs up. Maybe Wild Turkey would help.
Let me see if I understand 'Lunch' correctly: If a critter loses its lunch, that lunch disappears from the game; it is not lying around to be picked up by some other critter. If a critter drops its lunch, that lunch disappears from the game; it is not lying around to be picked up by some other critter. If a critter steals another critter's lunch, the stealing critter must, of course, already have a lunch. The result is that the stealee has no lunch and the stealer has lunch, not two lunches. Since lunches are not 'conserved' as objects, then they may be considered more as states, say 'lunchvoll' and 'lunchlos'. Did I get it?
I've been looking at the point scheme. The total number of points a player can have for critters next to the campfire is 24 plus 1 for each Shrew that can be promoted to Chipmunk, or 32. If you assume that promoting Shrews is difficult: Then the likelihood of exceeding your opponent's point count by 30 is close to zero. And the likelihood of losing the game even though the opponent's Bear is eliminated for 20 points is close to zero. Furthermore, to achieve the maximum score (32) for Campfire propinquity, there would have to be 16 critters adjacent to the Campfire. Since the train passes through each Campfire square 2 of every 20 turns, orchestrating the 'campout' without some critter getting sqooshed would be near impossible. Another interesting effect is that if each side loses its Hunter (foolishly, since the only way I can see for that to happen is for them both to be squished by the Train), the game can never end, except draw by agreement. Perhaps in this case we need something like a 50-move rule, but instead of a draw, the winner is declared on points. I can see the possibility of an urban variant of PASGL 312 called NYCTA IRT, where commuters jostle to be near the door to get on or off a subway train without being pushed onto the tracks or having their pockets picked. BTW, I noticed no one has actually rated this. I give it excellent for concept. Play is still moot.
I think Joseph is right. It looks like I missed exactly how points were accumulated. I was thinking they would be assessed once, at the end of the game, but assessing them at the end of each ply makes more sense. Then missing Hunters might not be a disaster, because if you outplayed your opponent, your score would eventually exceed his by 30 points anyway. It would probably be undesirable to have two royal pieces. This is another one of those games, like Nemoroth and Captain Spalding Chess, where you need to spend days studying the rules to have a chance. I love this stuff.
I've been meaning to ask how 'PASGL 312' is spoken. Most straight-forward would be 'pee-ay-ess-gee-ell-three-twelve'. I've personally been referring to it as 'Pennsylvania-State-Game-Lands-three-hundred-twelve Chess', but this might be considered hyper-correct. Other alternatives are also possible; which is most appropriate?
'...I guess you can score enough in one turn to win; with the Train coming by, you have 10 moves to load up a square and ten moves to empty it; but some of the emptying moves could go from one Train square to another.' If you are accumulating points fast enough, it may not be necessary to make any attempt to unload the Campfire square if you reach the 30 point advantage before the Train actually squishes your critters. 'Because of multiple occupancy, it's easy to promote a Shrew. However, it takes quite a few turns.' And all that time, your opponent is gathering his critters around the Campfire. (Do critters gathered around the Campfire sing songs and make s'mores?) '...this is baffling to try to play.' This is an alarming admission. I confess that, even after actually playing Nemoroth and Captain Spalding Chess, I am having trouble getting my mind around PASGL 312, and now the inventor is baffled, too. Maybe I'm not as dense as I feared.
'...but some of the emptying moves could go from one Train square to another.' Also, if you unload a Campfire square to a Campfire square on the other track, the train will be back to that square in 10 moves or so.
My opinion would be that the Cookie Monster's primordial nature would preclude any such politesse. I would expect that both Cookie Monsters would pounce on the mutually adjacent piece, devouring it, and each other, like the Kilkenny cats. We must await gnohmon's ruling for a definitive answer, however.
Based on my slight playing experience with Nemoroth, and considering how many Humans were left unpetrified and unmummified at the end of the game (3 out of 16), I suspect that it matters not which side is winning, the Humans are toast either way.
You could define a handful of basic rule sets that would apply to most chess variants, differing in such things as the effects of stalemate, or repetition. They could then be codified as Rule 0.1, Rule 0.2, etc., but that rather defeats the whole purpose of a Rule Zero, which I understand to be the irreducible minimum that most chess variants have in common. It is also possible to say, 'Rule Zero applies, except for...'
I understand that the Hunter cannot shoot through the Train, and the Deer cannot leap over the Train, but it is unspecified if the Woodchuck chucks wood in a high enough arc to clear the Train.
I will be playing PASGL 312 in the near future, and one of the plans I had considered was the Woodchuck and Fox working as a team against the opponents medium-sized critters. The Woodchuck bonks them, causing them to drop their lunch, and then the Fox darts in and devours them.
Apropos to other discussions about the importance of theme in a chess variant, this is an example of how theme really does count, even if it ideally shouldn't. The choice of the gothic horror theme clearly can strongly attract or repel a player, regardless of the objective merits of the game.
Exactly. The theme is completely arbitrary, totally unrelated to the mechanics of play, really just decoration. And yet, it has an effect on who likes and dislikes the game. This is a strong example for those who believe an appealing and well-expressed theme is important in a chess variant.
I have searched, and I cannot find any rule regarding repetition. Stalemate results in a pass or multiple passes, but I mean voluntarily repeating a position. What happens, if anything? Does it matter if points are being accumulated? Does the position of the Train count?
There is already a ZRF for this game on the ZoG site: http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/tishai.html
Yes, that's a good enough rule. My feeling was that it didn't matter. Even in a dual stalemate position, with just the Train chugging around, if there are pieces near the Campfire, the score will be incrementing, at least until the critters are squished by the Train. Wouldn't achieving a stalemate position be difficult? With multiple occupancy, it is near impossible to blockade lunchvoll critters, and if one player's critters were all lunchlos, he would be in a very bad position anyway, and possibly lost.
I'm with Joseph on this: too much work for the payoff. Think about keeping it up-to-date; whoever's job that was might have no life in a heavy contribution week. Also, listing all the pieces in a game is redundant to the actual game description. If it were done, it would be most useful to be identified by move, rather than name of piece. This would be a sysiphean labor. You would have to create indices based perhaps on funny notation. The syntax of funny notation is ambiguous, in that although it can describe movement precisely, there is more than one way to describe the same movement in many cases.
There's no reason why better linguistic information could not be included, even if the piece continues to be known by what is now its conventional name.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.