Comments by benr

It's looking better now.  It would be nicer if the links (to the Gindex, comments, etc.) were set above the collage; if a variant surrounds a link, I can't get to the link to click it, since the collage variant takes focus in front of the link.  It probably makes sense to do this for the login box and for the logo at the top left of the screen as well.

This exchange makes me wonder how hard it would be to create an applet that allows one to choose a small grid and fill in certain locations with flags, then outputs a list of named pieces (with links to appropriate CV pages) that share those moves on that grid (or perhaps--as options--at most those moves or at least those moves).

It seems that most of you already know this, but maybe it's still helpful
to note that there is a definite answer for who wins chess given perfect
play on both sides (white, black, or neither [draw]).  This is true of any
chess variant that involves a fixed turn structure, perfect information
(& no randomization), and finite length (here's where we need something
like the 50 turn rule).

So, in the mathematical sense, any such chess variant either has a perfect
1st turn, perfect 2nd turn, or absolutely no advantage.

Joe keeps referring to "noise", which is how we can manage to talk about
a 1st turn advantage without the mathematics making it boring.  So far no
one has actually defined the framework of the question, but it seems
generally to be accepted as referring to people's current thoughts on
optimum strategies, and how those interact.  I suppose to make this
rigorous we would want to define the fuzzy value of positions (it's
unclear how to do this, though current chess programs are probably a good
starting idea), then allow for some randomness in the players' moves that
biases toward high value positions.  Then I think we should say there's
"no" advantage if the probability distribution of wins-draws-losses given
this framework has no advantage with statistical significance.  So we say
there's no advantage if the noise drowns out whatever perfect mathematical
advantage actually exists.  (I think this is essentially what Joe has been
saying?)

Rodrigo, I think the idea is that if after white's move, black's only response will put white in (non-mate) check, then that black move is illegal, so black is in fact in checkmate, and white's move was legal.

Then, what happens if black's only response is to put white in a similar position?  This is the "paradox" that is referenced.

I agree that this is really neat.  Perhaps the 2007 comment makes it clear that this page should state more clearly at the beginning that this is a form of chess problem, not a suggested new method of notation.  :)

In fact, since I now see the "problem" icon attached to this page (but couldn't until I looked at the comments or re-found the page through search), maybe it would be beneficial to head every page with a note about what type of article it is?

It seems that you want the diagonal moves to be either diagonal within a layer, or triagonal (in the sense that Malcolm described).  Is that a fair assessment?

Do your kings also move this way (orthogonal or "special diagonals"), or do they really get 26 directions?

Do knights leap, or slide?  If they leap, you needn't say that they can go 1 then 2 or 2 then 1: they are equivalent.  (Saying it isn't bad, but it makes me think perhaps they don't leap...)

I agree that the checkmate example probably isn't checkmate.  That should get fixed/clarified.

The queen "holding" rule is nice, and a bit reminiscent of a rule Joe Joyce used for a 4D game.  However, it then seems likely that minimum mating material is FIDE chess mating material plus one queen.  Practically requiring a queen for mate seems like perhaps you should include additional pawns.  Or maybe a different piece should have the holding ability?

Namik Zade, you have three submissions for Knights games; did you mean to
submit all of these?  I tried to contact you via the email address listed
in your account, but the message bounced.

(In reference to Jeremy's note about comment display weirdness:
It occurred when the associated page was deleted; the hanging comment is handled strangely.  If an editor who knows more about the php code can fix this for the future that would be nice; for now I've just moved the comments for the deleted sovereign chess page into a non-page comment thread.)

I've added the pending submission link into the new menu.

I'm not getting anything coming up when I go to the Change Password page
via my membership info page.  Has this happened to anyone else?  Fergus, do
you know what's going on?

test comment: made after isDeleted was set.

It seems this entire book is now available as a free eBook.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XbbhY4Q6U0IC

I don't read German, but it looks like the book is entirely about the 8x8x8 version.  (There's some mention of different sizes, but I don't see any mention of a 5x5x5.)  Interestingly, the pieces are set up on the first two levels (instead of opposite levels as the 5x5x5).

Of course, there are some variants on these pages played on infinite
boards.  I have thought a bit about infinite-dimensional games as well.

I suppose any large size is workable, especially if pieces have short
moves: the game becomes a large map, which you could zoom in on a sector of
and make relatively normal-looking moves.  (It becomes a discrete version
of many RTS games.)  Infinite-dimensional doesn't admit as good a visual
tool.  :P

I believe I have the RSS feed working again.  Let us know if anything goes wrong.

As for the no-trading rule, see also Angel Chess (Ed has a java app for
it).

Thanks, after I got it working in Yahoo and Google I didn't actually run it through a validator.  Error-free now.

The new header includes a link to the signin/join page.

I could delete your old account Daniel, but it would be nice if we could find out what's happening with your temp password, to prevent future problems.

I'm not really sure if this qualifies as a 4D variant, but I've indexed it that way to be as inclusive as possible.

If pieces couldn't turn at the knot, I would insist that it is 4D, but which is easier to explain here: four disjoint 1D boards with a glued square, or a subset of the 4D board with turning pieces?  (Note that in the 4D interpretation, the Entity's teleport power is almost the same as a 4D bishop's move.)

I'm not sure how practical an offline app would be.

I agree a random article would be nice, but I'm not sure exactly how to implement it, especially since our articles come in two flavors: hardcoded html and database entries.  And should it just be game articles?