Comments by JohnLawson

Peter -

I just downloaded the ZRF 1.1 dated 8/15, and Black was able to pull three
Elephants from his Pajama before I called it quits.  I had no trouble
running it with Zillions 1.3.1 and Windows 95.  I saved a ZSG file if you
need it.

I did not test for the same situation for the Great Pajama or the Box.

The graphics are a big improvement over the alpha version I got a while
back.

These are the salient points, as I see them:

- There are so many good variants it's hard to even agree on a list to
select from.

- Large variants should be carefully considered because of playing time
considerations.

- Subsequent PBEM tournaments could have different themes.

My proposal:

- Select the variants from the top three finishers of the 38, 39, 40, and
41 square contests.  This gives 12 selections to choose from, and most are
not famous or recognized variants.  Their playablility is proven, they are
relatively small, and should generally be done quickly.

I like the idea of holding a different PBEM contest each year, if there is
interest.  Possibilities include a Large Variant theme (selected from the
Large Variant, 100 square, and 84 square contests); a Betza theme (all
Betza variants); an Aronson theme.  The games selected for these contests
should not overlap.  Other possibilities include a history theme
(Shatranj, Xiangqi, Shogi, Makruk, etc.); a Shogi variant theme (Tori,
Chu, Wa, etc.); etc.

Count me in.

Jean-Louis said:
'10x10 should not be that difficult to get : it is the
regular board for International Checkers, even though people plays
Draughts in US (a much simpler game), with Internet, Int Checkers board
should be easily available.' 

That's what I would think, too, but Ben and I have seached and searched,
and international draughts boards seem to be unobtainable in the US.  We
have no desire to pay trans-Atlantic shipping charges, so if anyone knows
where to find them here, please enlighten us.  Thanks.

The URL is misspelled.  It should be:

http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/rjhare/shogi/dai-shogi/intro.htm

In the original statement about the contest, Glenn Overby said:
'The goal is to get some of the better new or
obscure variants more play and exposure (although there will be room for
more usual games as well).'

Since one of the goals is exposure, I would not like to see XiangQi or
Shogi, but wouldn't mind variants such as Gothic, Omega, or Grand Chess. 
These are widely played, but not played by millions.

In my opinion, machines are out.  One can play against ZoG or other
programs anytime one wants, and it is not satisfying to me.

A revote on a winnowed list makes sense.  It would be OK to add games that
were written in on the first vote.  If the participation of machine
players is disputed, add that to the second round vote.  Finally, consider
playing only games that were voted for by the people who enter the
contest.  If some variant gets 100 votes, but no one who voted for it
enters, throw it out.

For comparison's sake, I quickly calculated some piece densities:

Shogi     49.4%
XiangQi   35.6%
Timur's   50.0%

The density of any 9x9 variant with an extra piece is 44.4%

I'm actually playing an email game of this with David Short, the inventor. 
We're only on move 8, too soon to have an opinion yet.  Mostly I'm trying
to figure out how to develop, and haven't really had to address most of
the special powers.
Note that a subset of this game was entered in the 84-Squares Contest as
Schizophrenic Chess.

No. There is no such move in the standard rules of chess. 
You can only get another Queen by promoting a pawn.

My first question so far involves Ash trees.

Given:
- All the squares comprising a tree lead through a series of adjacent
squares back to the root.
- Ash trees grow by Knight moves.

Then I assume:
- Ash squares that are a Knight's move apart are considered adjacent.

If:
- An Ash tree grows from b1 to c3 to d5, stops, and then grows to b4.

And:
- The Ash square d5 is killed.

Then:
- Ash square b4 dies also, even though it is diagonally adjacent to c3. 
Is this correct?


My second question involves underbrush.

When a deciduous tree is killed or injured, the underbrush squares left
behind are neutral.  Is it true that neutral underbrush has no way to
grow?


My third question involves the Huckleberry.

Once per game, the Huckleberry can expand by leaping onto any friendly
grassland square.  Is this Huckleberry distinct from the original
Huckleberry, resulting in two equal royal pieces?

Ben Good and I actually played four games of Nemoroth. Two ended early due
to oversights, but below you will find the score of the first game we
played.  The notation is a combination of mine and Mousambani's, but
should be readily interpretable.

This game was moderated by Ralph Betza, who let us know right away when we
had done something wrong.  You will not see the illegal moves that had to
be redone.  The major problem with illegal moves involved the Basilisk and
Ghast, and forgetting that their powers affect the owning player as much
as the opposing player.

This is obviously not an example of fine play, and is presented as is.

Nemoroth
Lawson vs. Good
S: 4-28-02
1. Bd3~c2,e2                           Hab6
2. L:Hb2                               Wa5
3. Lb3(Mb2)                            Wb5
4. Lb4                                 L:Hc7
5. L:wb5                               Ld6(Mc7)~
6. Gf3                                 Bf6~e7,g7
7. Gh5                                 Hd6*
8. Ab3                                 Be4~d2,f2*
9. Bc5~b7,d7                           Ag8!,pHg6,Le8,W^,H^*
10. Ae1                                Bd5~e6
11. Ae1!,pHc3,pHe3,pHg3,Lg1            Ha5
12. Ac4                                Hb4
13. Ac4!,La6,Bc6(~b8,d8),Be6,pHc2,Ha4  Bd4*
14. Bb5*~a4,c4                         Be2
15. Ad2                                Bd3
16. Gf3                                Bc1~d2*
17. Gd1

Ben's comment:
After 16...Be1~d2, 17.Gd1 still wins the game.  I can play 17...Bf2 which
in fact is forced), but the B will still be compelled on move 18 and will
have no moves left.


    a      b      c      d      e      f      g      h
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|      |  pa  |      |  pg  |   l  |      |  a   |      | 8
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|      |  ph  |   m  |  ph  |  ph  |      |      |      | 7
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| L w  |      |      |  pl  |   ph |      | ph   |      | 6
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|      |  B   |      |      |      |      |      |      | 5
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|  ph  |      |  pA  |      |      |  pH  |      |      | 4
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|      |      |      |      |      |      |  pH  |      | 3
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      | M    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|  H   |pH pH |      |  pA  |      |      |  H   |  H   | 2
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|  W   |      |  B   |  G   |      |      |  L   |  W   | 1
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

It was suggessted on the Bishop Conversion Rule page that it could be used
with Modern Chess.

http://www.chessvariants.com/varvar.dir/bcr.html

I dug out my Modern Chess set because I remembered that this issue had
been addressed in the rules. According to the Mathematical Thesis of
Modern Chess, by Gabriel Vicente Maura, (2nd revised edition, 1974, page
34 note), once during a game a player may do 'the adjustment of the
Bishop'. This move allows the player to interchange the positions of
either Bishop and the adjacent Knight. Like castling, neither piece may
have moved, and the action counts as a move. This may be done only once
per game, and both players have to agree to allow this move before the
start of the game. This move is not allowed by the World Federation of
Modern Chess, but the author recommends familiarizing oneself with playing
with Bishops on different colors. This 50-page booklet also contains a
justification of the design of Modern Chess based on mobility
calculations, and two photographs of Mr. Maura with his chess set.

gnohmon writes:
Is it clear that growing from a1 to a7 means occupying a2 through a6 as
well? 

I think so.  I also interpret 'momentum' to mean, if you grow your Pine
Tree two squares on the NW diagonal, it will continue to grow at the rate
of two squares per turn until it autostops, or is stopped, and that every
square on that diagonal will be Pine Tree squares between the origin and
final squares.  That is, for a Pine Tree on a1, growing to c3 means b2 is
also a Pine Tree square.  The second turn it grows to e5 and d4 is also a
Pine Tree square.  The third turn it grows to g7 and f6 is also a Pine
Tree square.  The fourth turn, it can no longer continue moving two
squares per turn, and so autostops.

Yes.  I actually own them all, purchased in 1985 and 1986 as a wedding
present to myself when the pound was $1.08.  (And my wife did *not* get an
annulment!)

There will be longer and longer waits between them, as they take longer
and longer to set up as they get larger.  Tai Shogi really does take two
hours to set up, if you're a novice (and who isn't?)

LCC wrote:
'But still, I liked the background music of the article.'
FYI, it's the third movement of Beethoven's 'Moonlight Sonata'.