Comments by JohnLawson

In response to Moussambani's earlier post, I agree that the situations you
desribe in the first paragraph regarding the Go Away are legal, but your
examples are flawed in that you don't have the pieces compelled to go away
move one square directly away from the Go Away.  The rule definately says
this:
Instead of moving, [the Go Away] can scream GO AWAY! and all adjacent
pieces, whether friend or foe, whether mobile or immobile, are pushed one
square directly away from it. 

Regarding the interpretation of Human promotion in the second paragraph,
gnohmon will have to say for sure, but it seems to me that a Human that
arrives on the last rank is promoted to Zombie immediately, and then what
ever the resulting interactions are take place, be they immunity to
petrification or destruction by ichor.  This is similar in concept to a
Leaf Pile engulfing an adjacent Ghast as a saving move.

Peter Aronson wrote:
'(Zillions is hardly the only tool suitable for this sort of thing, of
course, but it is the one that usually comes to hand for me. Occasionally I
worry about the effect this has on my game designing, since if the only
tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts to look like a nail. However,
the essay Zillions of Games: threat or menace, will have to wait for
another day.)'

I had never thought of this effect, perhaps because I neither design games
nor write ZRFs (I entirely lack creativity).  I take this to mean that
ZoG-wise game designers will avoid designing games using concepts that
cannot be effectively implemented in Zillions-of-Games, thereby limiting
their own creativity.

At the same time, ZoG has been considered a tremendous boon to board game
variantists of all stripes, allowing them to play and test their
more-or-less obscure discoveries and creations without the need to actually
find and interact with other people.

So, the starter questions are, 'Does ZoG limit creativity?', 'If it does,
does it matter?'  What do you think?

So we allow ourselves to be limited by the tools we are comfortable with. 
Peter tailors his inventions with an eye to Zillions implementation. 
Gnohmon, having a 8x8 board in his head, concentrates on ideas that play on
an 8x8 board that feel like chess.

Is this a bad thing, because it limits creativity?

Is it a good thing, because it concentrates the mind?

Both of you produce one interesting idea after another.  So do other
inventors.  Do the limitations of the universes of discourse you have
chosen confine or focus your creative efforts?

I have also perceived an attitude among some CVPhiles that a creation is
not complete without a ZRF.  Certainly, this is a wrong-headed attitude,
although a good ZRF is pleasing.  Is the implicit requirement for a ZRF a
bad thing?  I would say yes, because it discourages people with ideas whose
skills or inclinations are just not up to producing ZRFs routinely.  As a
result, there may be ideas that are interesting or intriguing that do not
see the light of day.  Do you agree?

Nerdy indeed!

I had envisioned something like 'Heads up! Bishop coming though!'  But the
clock runs while you're on your hands and knees under the table looking for
it, so restraint would be encouraged.

In George Hodges' 'Ten Shogi Variants', Wayne Schmittberger states, in the
Tai Shogi section, 'A single Pawn, or other weak piece, advanced too far to
be protected can, under certain circumstances, be fatal in a game of Tai!' 

If this is true, then it's unlikely that Spinal Tap vs. Terror Chess has
reached the stage where there is so much material imbalance doesn't matter.

A couple of off-the-cuff ideas:

Rotation:
A rotation of a piece would count as a move (a la 3M's Ploy), but perhaps
should be limited in such a way as rooks remain rooks and bishops remain
bishops, etc.

Size:
Pieces could start at eight squares, and change size as a move.  That might
be interesting, because a shorter piece would have less influence but might
be able to slip through places otherwise blocked.

Although the format of the CVP is like a database or encyclopedia, I think
that it is actually better thought of as a 'conversation' about chess
variants.  Many variantists probably actually play very little, and most
variants receive very little play.  Therefore, the main point of the CVP,
at least for some, is the communication of the ideas behind the variants.

As in any 'conversation', although the primary focus is to impart
information, a desire to amuse, entertain, and interact is perfectly valid.
 Also, some variants are better understood with the story that inspired
them.  A bare-bones exposition of the Nemoroth rules would seem
incomprehensible and arbitrary.  Other variants that are hard to appreciate
without their background stories are Peter's Ruddigore Chess, or Dan
Troyka's Hitchhiker Chess.

One is on thinner ice with descriptions that are just plain silly, like my
Pizza Kings.  It is important to avoid a descent into pointless sophomoric
humor, like the relentless plays on words in the headlines of bad
newspapers.

We should also remind ourselves, when writing rules, that the CVP has an
international following.  Therefore, it is likely that the point behind
Ruddigore Chess is completely opaque to someone with no knowledge of or
interest in late 19th C. English musical theater.  We also have to be
careful not to obscure the rules with verbal cleverness.

The beauty of the recently improved comment system, is that it provides a
forum for those so inclined to play with words and concepts, without
getting in the way of the clarity of the descriptive pages.

I think I might have had a point once in all this, but I ignored it and it
wandered away.  I like clever and amusing literate writing.  I think it
enhances the CVP, but it is not necessary to the CVP.  Intelligent,
well-thought-out, and clearly described variants are what is necessary.