Comments by judgmentality

Thank you!

Are these links working?

not seeing preset

In my current game of Shogi, it won't let me play bishop takes bishop. An error message appears instead. 

Hi.

i believe the personal invitation feature for game courier simply hasn't been working for some time now.

Only public invites are working. 

Nonetheless: Thanks for all your great work on the website, Fergus. 

is it just me or are some of the pieces in this preset not showing up - try clicking on the preset and tell me if this is happening to you too.

nightrider a LINE-PIECE invented by W.S. Andrews in 1907 and first used in FAIRY PROBLEMS in 1925 by DAWSON, who named it (perhaps after Nightrider Street, adjacent to the place where he attended Problemists' meetings)...

Okay, I think I got these issues corrected (while, again, preserving the old version so previous logs should be intact).

Thanks again and apologies! :-)

Thank you, Georg.

A few of us (so far, Carlos, Cameron and I) who enjoyed playing in the Cetran Chess 2 tournament would like to host another informal tournament here where everyone is invited to play and to suggest his/her own variant.

Event start date: May 1st.

Period for accepting entries: from April 1 to April 28: 2 days for making the matchings.

Competition system: ...details to be worked out depending on number of players...

My "dish" will be my 2 Queen Rocky Horror Lycanthropic Chess (Symmetric Variation) but your offering doesn't have to be your own (e.g., Cameron might bring Ultima).

Knightguardzee can move as knightwazirzee or knightferzee.

All are inspired by / derivative of Joe Joyce's Atlantean Shatranj pieces.

Cameron, I'm glad to play the game out for our own purposes, just as Joe Joyce and I hope to play out our games too, but without any bearings on Cameron's well-earned victory in this tournament. Thank you, Cameron, for exhibiting such tremendously great sportsmanship.

Your lavish praise of me earlier is much appreciated and made me feel already like a real winner long before our two games concluded. Thank you for that!

It really was part of my strategy to use as much time as I was allowed but I don't say it was a particularly good or ethical strategy. It may have created an aura of self-consciousness that wouldn't have been there otherwise and this may have detracted from the quality of some of the games, I'm not sure. But regardless, I, for one, learned a lot from playing in this tournament.

Thank you, Carlos, for organizing the tournament. I richly enjoyed it and look forward to the next one. I hope there will be another one in 2015 (I hope to talk with you about this, Carlos as I have some ideas about it; you mentioned wanting to organize other tournaments as well; let's discuss). I enjoyed the lucky games I played against you quite a bit too.

I would also like to come back and annotate each of the games played in this tournament. Perhaps a few of us can collaborate on that.

The tournament helped lure me back to the site and created a really positive turning point in focus, perhaps not just for me. I'm tremendously grateful that I was invited and allowed to play in it.

I tried very hard to win this tournament but I hope to re-double my efforts in the next one. There were points at which I wish I'd played much better (despite taking much time, overlooking some perhaps obvious moves) and/or taken more time to examine my moves (I see these time management issues as an essential part of my learning curve though) and obviously many points at which I benefited from others' blunders. I have a deep and increasing personal, vested interest in improving as a chess/variants-player. For one thing, I enjoy the athletic and aesthetic aspects of competitive chess.

The game Cetran Chess 2, like Tutti Frutti but more so, should help people appreciate that games with all different pieces are certainly as sophisticated as games with twin pieces. Cetran Chess 2 encompasses a nice range of value, with maybe four, five or six levels.

1) Knight (in its own beloved category).

2) Rook and Dragon Horse,

3) In its own category: Cardinal/Archbishop (which in some ways was the star of this tournament with its great mobility and forking ability),

4) Marshall/Chancellor

5) Queen

6) Sissa.

One could also lump the latter three in the same category as it frequently makes sense to allow exchanges among them. The exchangeability of pieces in categories 2 and 4 - 6 is part of what makes Cetran Chess 2 so fascinating. I think you really hit it out of the park with this one, Carlos.

Although the Sissa has a much more limited range than I thought initially (until the endgame it is very hard for it to go more than three or four spaces orthogonally), its tremendous forking abilities give it an edge, in my opinion, over all the other pieces, one that grows as pieces are removed from the board. If you can, I suggest to hang on to your Sissa! Too bad I had to exchange it in my last game.

As with all fairy pieces, I'm still trying to get used to it and even overlooked completely two of its moves in my last game (the ones prior to my opponent enjoying a sizeable material advantage).

The more I play with the Sissa, the more I appreciate it as a piece. It provides a wonderful and vital way of re-envisioning orthogonal and hippogonal distances on the chessboard.

Playing in this tournament gave me a renewed appreciation for both the piece and the game. Thanks again to you and everyone who played with me, including Sagi (don't be discouraged; thank you for conceiving of the idea of this tournament) and Joe (who is always a great player, designer and friend).

As a designer, I am inspired by Cetran Chess 2 to think about creating more games filled with diverse pieces and multi-tiered values. The randomizing keeps it fresh, but I encourage people to play both sides of each new random setup to make things fair.

Would love if you did.

Looking forward to Macadamia Shogi.

Ultima with Different Armies. I like it. :-)

Some good ideas worth trying out here. :-)

The email address you have listed on your profile for this site doesn't seem to work. Maybe you should create a new one?

If and when you have time, I'd like to correspond with you about piece icons, e.g., your Fairy Pieces 1 (which I just noticed only today), forthcoming Fairy Pieces 2 and other cv-related things...

I'm doing a lot of piece design too (more than ever), including venturing into some art territories that I've never explored before. Very exciting for me. Would like to share what I'm working on, confer and maybe collaborate...? We also need to get all these pieces you've already created and shared with the site uploaded to Alfaerie - Many and maybe you could coordinate with me to get that done...

You were the one who explained to me how I could design pieces to begin with...I'm impressed with all the work you've done in this area.

If and when you get a chance, please do email me...suspecting you're a busy professional so please don't feel rushed or obliged.

Instead:

You will need to enter (type in) two moves in the Moves space and then click the preview button, etc.

e.g., f10 to e10, d10, c10 or b10 and then your rook from a10 to the other side of your king (since in Wildebeest Chess, one has the option of moving the king 1, 2, 3 or 4 squares over and then the rook to the square immediately on the other side of the king).

The way to do this is by separating the two moves with a semi-colon.

For example:

f10-c10; a10-d10

Good luck. That should work just fine.

If not, let me know...

By saying it would breathe a little easier, I wasn't meaning to imply that the Dragon in an 8 x 8 is not still a fun piece to play with.

Please let me know, here or in email, what you think of this queen, whether it works for you as a were-queen piece or if you think we need a different piece.

A while back, I created a piece that I intended as a Queen + Renniassance Cavalier + Renniassance Duke. But I've not used it yet and in the mean time I think I may have a more appropriate solution for the piece I had in mind. That frees up this piece to become standard for the Were Queen (Fox / Wolf) if you like it. If not, it's back to the drawing board for me. FIDE vs. Duking Falcons.

Purely for the sake of diversity, I've taken the liberty of replacing the Shatranjian Knights with crab-ferzes.

A. Please go to this site: http://play.chessvariants.org/pbmlogs/index.php

(Save the link because it can be a good idea to check in on it frequently. For some reason, not every move that's made via game courier goes through to email.)

B. When you go to that site, please enter your userid avunjahei where it says userid and then click the button on the right that says "submit". Then click on your name in blue for any of the three games you've started there. It will take you to that game.

Now, there are two ways you can enter a move and then there are some tricks for unusual moves that you may sometimes need to use especially in presets that aren't rules enforced (like all the ones I have submitted so far since I haven't taught myself that much programming yet for game courier). I will attempt to tell you the tricks if and when you may need them but for now, let me try to walk you through entering a move with a step-by-step process:

1. Point at the piece you want to move. Click on it. Click on its destination square. The move should show up in the space marked "Moves."

OR

2. Enter the actual move into the space marked "Moves" - this means entering the first coordinate followed by the last coordinate. (d2-d4 for example would move a pawn from d2 - d4 in a variant where this is possible).

3. Now, after completing step 1 OR 2, click the button "Preview."

4. In the new screen, there will be a space for you to enter your password. Enter it if you are satisfied with the move that appears on the screen (good to double-check!) and then click "Send."

Voila. It should now record your move. The move might not show up right away but it will.

Does that work for you?

I am working on a preset for Duking Falcons. It should ultimately require me to design a piece, get it and its movement approved by others who are working on this, and then get it uploaded. But in the mean time, I can send you a mockup preset with a piece we will pretend is the new one and / or one with the rook as the consort piece. Let me know if you want to do this. I'm glad you want to try it out.

Please describe by what routes your lame gnu gets to its camel / knight squares. Or are you saying the knight-chirality is what makes it lame?

I can't disagree more strongly with such people as those who take the ultraconservative Book of Ecclesiastes approach to variants and life, that "there is nothing new under the sun" and that "all is vanity and vexation of the spirit." There is so much yet to be discovered, looming just before us. Just look at the advance of science, technology, math, even art, music, literature, cinema. There is no shortage of inspiration. We do not criticize science or math for proliferation of new discoveries, new inventions, new understandings and neither should we criticize variants qua variants or professional chessplayers who specialize in particular variants. There are, of course, almost innumerable amazing chess moves, variants and pieces yet to be discovered...almost (cvts maybe suggests otherwise!? Is infinity real?!). In elaborating this philosophy, I call myself a pupil of no school but rather a student of every serious academy of variants play.

*The* case in point, this variant of Carlos's:

I am truly astonished at all the work Carlos has put into developing this chess variant, which attempts to be an homage to all chess variant pieces and tribute to chess variants / "variants chess" / chess qua chess.

Fantastic work!

I would really encourage all chess variant inventors who have the time and energy to play as much Universal Chess as possible and not only that, but to work on developing Universal Chess variants. I myself have big plans for this realm. The energy you put into it will reward you richly - at least, I have found it so. Universal Chess has provided me with phenomenal growth in understanding and appreciation of variants and pieces.

Even some of the pieces I invented for some untried "prolific" variants (upon my most recent return to this world, I am attempting a more measured approach to publication, preferring to update in some cases) only really came to life for me once I started to play Universal Chess and this, in turn, inspired discovery of more astounding pieces and designs.

The inventor sees this game as a parade of pieces and chance for the pieces to be put on display on the grand venue of 8 x 8. He uses the metaphor "shadowboxing". I want to see and help develop this concept grow beyond that.

In my own personal experience, I've found work on this variant most beneficial if regarded as a serious arena for chess combat. That may just speak to my own general philosophy, perhaps like that of the great Em. Lasker (whose philosophical works about chess as struggle I would like to read one day - I don't think they've been translated into English).

I award this variant 6 out of 5 stars or 11 out of 10 stars. You broke the mold with this one, Carlos. Thank you, with sincerest gratitude, for developing this universal chess "chess utopian" work. BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo!!!!

This discussion, about contracting the FIDE board, helped me recall this morning Ingo Althofer's En Passant Chess which although merely gimmick-y is also fun and I've played it a little. Because it *is* gimmicky, it might not have much depth and might very well give White a forced win which we could discover, as you suggest. The consequence of contracting the board allows the En Passant rule to really come into its own. Most established dogma about what makes cvs playable is entirely arbitrary and can be thrown out the window with a little rule adjustment, I've found...the familiar shouldn't be confused with the truth.

Thanks for the questions. I've updated and slightly revised the variant to answer them.

Email me, plz, zzo. If you have time.

Did you get my email I sent you a few months ago? Email me, please, if you have time.

I have a suggestion for a possible Sky variant which I'm currently calling "Sky Kamil." This is just a working playtest variant, not necessarily final.

The point is to tame it; make it a teeny bit more "chess-like" by adding a little bit of traditional pawn-interference.

1. These camel pawns move like forward camels or like regular "European" / Orthodox / FIDE pawns.

2. They can NOT make a NON-CAPTURING camel move on their first move.

3. After that, the SK Camel-Pawn's camel-move aspect switches, from CAPTURING to NON-CAPTURING.

4. Camel-Pawns can only promote to Trippers or Commuters.

Open, of course, to any comments you might have.

***This occured to me in writing out the above: An easier and simpler alternative to the above (and this could be implemented easily in the Game Courier automation - all the camel-pawns can be programmed to change into regular pawns upon moving): The camel pawns only exist as such camel / orthodox pawns for their first move which can be capturing or non-capturing. Immediately upon moving, they revert to "normal" (orthodox / fide / European) pawns.

This latter variant of "Sky Kamil" sounds more appealing at the moment...thotz?

"WARHEAD Pawn: both steps must be capturing (more aggressive than the above)"

- to say that both steps MUST be capturing is not to make the Warhead pawn more aggressive but to allow the Warhead pawn an initial double step only in the extremely unusual event that two pawns are lined up for it to take. Since an opponent is unlikely to allow that to happen, in practice, that means the Warhead pawn is unlikely to be able to make an initial double step at all.

So in practice, makes it more passive, not more aggressive (unless we substitute "can" for "must.")

Edit: I see my comment is insufficient in light of how you use "may" to introduce combinations of initial-step pawns. I will review and comment again later, unless someone can clear all this up in the mean time. I am now thinking perhaps we can create an even more comprehensive list that is also more plausible - unless you already did that, Charles. I wouldn't put anything past you when it comes to creating authoritative lists.

OR:

At what point will the technological singularity arrive to chess variants and how might we define that?

G2K re: GKK (Garry Kimovich) middle name used here as traditional Russian
sign of respect.

I mistook "cvp" as "CUP" - sorry. Thanks! :-)

Carlsen is one point ahead but with five games to go, Anand has White
pieces three more times.

Who ever made the comment about the Top Heart being a Boyscout restricted to just two moves, great point and nice analysis. :-)

No, hehe, I can't add. 2 points each.

These are all ingenious ways of looking at the problem, H.G. :-) Excellent work.

In Universal Chess, the question of Colorboundness may not be quite as relevant to the ending since there is always the possibility of adding a new piece every sixth move.

There is, however, a way in which the ("pure" / "theoretical" / "hard") scientific community differs very much from the professional community in that scientists are encouraged to share their results and submit them for peer review. Chess athletes too are encouraged to do the same and the universal consensus about advice grandmasters have for chess athletes as the number one way to improve themselves is this: Play over your own games and annotate them in as detailed a way as possible, drawing on the most pertinent resources (AI, opening theory, tablebases, etc.)

Yet, the professional chessplayer will want to keep his most important innovations (mostly I speak here of TN "theoretical novelties" or opening innovations - relatively easy for computers to find but surprisingly difficult for humans) secret to unleash as weapons. The model for this is obvious: Warfare. This is the most genesis metaphor I failed to mention in posts of today. Yes, this chessplayer is similar to teams of scientists who compete to patent in the marketplace and don't rush to publish until they've acquired intellectual property.

There was an innovation by a great variant player on PBM that involved one's opponent selecting possible moves for choice on each successive move. This conversational way of engaging during ongoing games of chess is a nascent field of variant theory I wish to develop further, adding another metaphor, chess as a rigid way of exploring logical communication, exposing hypocrisy (cf. Em. Lasker again). For me, it's a chief appeal of rule-based games. People can and do argue endlessly about abstractions (regardless of whether they are right or wrong) but only a poor sport will argue with a fairly executed, concrete winning game experience.

Speaking only for myself, I had no intention of discouraging an alternate system of nomenclature. At this moment, I have no flash of insight into how to begin one, but my remarks were intended to convey that it would make sense to develop an internationally recognized system that is more accurate and sensitive to language differences. Possibly language, traditionally, has effectively divided people as much as it has united them. Like the scientific community at its best, the chess variant community is and should be international in scope, when we act with deliberate purpose and not mere whimsy and comfort (neither of which should be discounted as important motivating forces for lingual and variant activity). 

IN short, I welcome the dialogue, discussion and any contributions to this subject matter any interested parties may have.

I only ask, if we are to continue this dialogue, that perhaps we start a new thread for it rather than under the rubric Team-Mate Chess.

Our trick, as chess variant enthusiasts, is to show that chess variant traditions and innovations are what will revitalize the international chess scene of professional chess athleticism...

e.g., Look at the way (scroll to bottom of article) Carlsen and Anand talk, exactly like any sportsmen, football players or basketball players, golfers, etc...focus on the present, don't place too much importance on any past moment or future prospect, a bland way of speaking esp. downplaying any past accomplishment (there are exceptions of course, trash-talking and amusing conceit of Cassius Clay, e.g.) but a lingo deeply familiar to any and all sports fanatics (there is a scene in the film Bull Durham where a promising athlete is coached to speak blandly in interviews, underselling - something legendary Patriots coach Bill Belichick advises his players as a media strategy "don't believe or fuel the hype" - "manage expectations" - "ignore the noise")...

When asked if the last match had any bearings on this one Anand said, “I don’t see the point of keeping that in the background. There will enough problems in this match to deal with without adding that, so at least that’s not something I am trying to reflect on.”

Carlsen agreed with his senior on the matter.

“What happened in the last match is in the past, I agree with Vishy that are going to be plenty of difficult and critical moments in the match, no point in dwelling in the past,” he said.

I lean towards thinking dropping should be after the move myself but I too am open. What did you envision originally?

To John Smith: I've finally figured out how to answer your question. If a Cylindrical Bishop goes to an x or y square it acts normally and not cylindrically. The board shall be regarded as cylindrical only in an 8 x 8 way while seeming to exclude the unusual corner squares (which still exist, just not in cylindrical space). I've updated the rules to reflect this. Thank you for bringing attention to this formerly unaddressed problem.

I enjoy the Betzan lexicon but maybe that's only because I'm used to it. Was it really necessary to create mnemonic devices like Waffle Wazir + Alfil for pieces that were known for hundreds of years before (Waffle = Phoenix). Just because we've been promoting the Betzan lexicon for a decent amount of time here doesn't mean that we can't come up with a new one that works better internationally. Also, this can be a little idiosyncratic like naming your child Emily rather than Susan. I have preferred names for bishop-knight compound and the rook-knight compound but there are several that others prefer and I've noticed variant inventors will often rename well known pieces the way Betza did not too long ago. 

Standardization is something that has to catch on in order to work.

In the diagram for Grand Warp Point Chess, shouldn't the upper knight also be able to go to d8? (Would like to see it be able to go to g4 and e4 too).

Thanks for your consideration. 

Okay, I think I mis-stated the real question in 2009. 

I think my friend and I agree that the spotter is the same side as the archer. 

If I understand correctly, the question is really where does the spotter have to be? 

* Behind the victim? (I think this is my friend's interpretation).

* Or anywhere within two spaces in a straight line (diagonal or vertical or horizontal) from the victim? (My interpretation).

In the current position of the game I cite, can the cannon pawns on e2 and a2 be seen as spotting the piece on c4?

"To keep adding more pieces to this variant, the main task to be done is standardize the various piece sets into one: the Alfaerie-many." I will work on that too. As much work as I've already done on Alfaerie - Many, it represents just a fraction of what I intend to do.

I would like to do some de-cluttering, or at least consolidating, too, for
my own variants. Can relate.

I think it's wonderful that they're playing again and I can't count
Anand-the-underdog out. I'm rooting for him because he's a peer age-wise.
He might very well come back and win. He earned the rematch by beating very
fine players. He has experience, nerve and pluck. Carlsen and Anand both
have remarkably fine personalities, similar ones even, winsome and
charismatic and a pinch self-deprecatory. Great chess athletes and fine,
beloved people. I won't be surprised if this isn't their last world
championship match. 

Caruana vs. Carlsen seems like a good possibility too though. Edit: This is a fun site to monitor: http://www.2700chess.com/

Thank you both, for lending clarity to the discussion. I do have a way of getting confused, especially while under the pressure of playing unfamiliar positions. Yes, now it seems clear that my commentary bucked chess norms we routinely follow so it's not as unfamiliar as I made it out to be. 

I was wrong and you're both right - good job.

George, thanks for your thoughtful commentary. I especially liked your description of the moa route to capture the Harvester! Heh. :-) 

I deeply appreciate your poignant argument, H.G. Muller AND want to ask you: Is Chu Shogi really to be considered a large variant? Apparently, it means "mid-sized chess." I am not trying to undermine anything you're saying (because I think it's all true even the comment that 12 x 12 is a large variant in contemporary terms where variants bigger than 12 x 12 are almost never played). If we're going to regard Chu Shogi's lion as a normative piece, I only wish to suggest that we should perhaps consider 12 x 12 boards normatively mid-sized and not large. Here I'm deferring to shogi history, not contemporary thought.

I will post a couple of prototypes for these pawns here to be added, with your approvals, at some point, hopefully, to alfaerie - many. 

Carlos, in the description about cannon pawns, it talks about edge squares, which I think are only relevant to their use in Rococo. So it can just be erased, for the sake of this game.

Jörg, I very much enjoy the game and exploring these pieces. You are a very good variant designer and thinker about chess variant fairy pieces.

I also like Quinquereme and I'm very excited one day to try experimenting with your CwDA army, Sai Squad (as well as your other CwDA armies). 

I am trying to get an idea for an estimate of the strength of these Nachtmahr pieces - I believe the Rose is strongest, maybe followed (in order of strength) by straight wide crooked nightrider, quintessence, regular nightrider, diagonal wide crooked nightrider and diagonal narrow crooked nightrider. Any thoughts? Maybe after more experience, I will have a better theory - these are just vague guesses.

How might the Nachtmahr army fare against FIDE? It's commonly thought that a normal nightrider is worth as much as a rook on an 8 x 8 board. I suppose the Nachtmahr army would handily defeat the FIDE army...

http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DNachtmahr+vs.+FIDE%26settings%3Djudgmentality

If you please, what are the names for pieces other than rose, nightrider (qua nightrider) and quintessence? In your notes, you mention a French and German name but you don't say which piece specifically these names apply to...

Also, Carlos and I are having a bit of discussion about the Quinquereme - he created a nice diagram which you can see here: 

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listkibbitz.php

I have ideas about some other nightriders one might develop for fun and a sort of game design for a Nachtmahr 2 (which I might call something more akin to "a dream") introducing some of these other nightriders.


Please email me if you're interested in discussing or as a courtesy, I shall email you when I've come up with an actual variant. It too will be a "study game" but maybe playable as well...certainly I am having fun playing Nachtmahr right now and it's, at the very least, helping me to become more familiar with how these pieces move.

Daniil - good questions - different people may want to weigh in on this with ideas. My own suggestions are that yes the pawns from the queenless side can promote into a queen and that the pawn starting on the queen square can advance one two or three squares for its move (that en passant could be exercised against it on the double or triple space move), but that after that initial move, the double (or triple) option is taken away (which might be hard to remember if this pawn opts to move just one square for its first move). I'm happy to see that this game has been fully played out several times now since I posted it here. I'll be interested in reviewing the games...

What does anyone think? Is one side superior? Or are they evenly matched?

Was not able to figure out a good CDA team - was going to be "Cunning Cupids" but it will take a lot more work if it will ever come to fruition. I think I even had some questions lingering about how I wanted these pieces to move. A cursory glance leaves me sputtering, not being able to interpret [all of] these diagrams. 

Hoping to re-visit and polish...at some point...

ty Ben...well, hmm... :)

Ben, thank you very much. 

"Frog logs" - hehe.

We may possibly need the designers of the presets to help by telling us what changes were made along the way? I don't currently have the expertise to figure this out but there may be other ways of unlocking those records...

The one nice thing though is that the logs *do* exist and I'm sure that they can be unlockable at some point (so I hope they don't get arbitrarily deleted) - I'm just not sure how right now.

None of the logs for this game are accessible. They all run into an error message related to the frog piece.

Forgive me if this has already been addressed but almost none of the logs for these games are accessible and i would really like to review them. Ah well, i suppose there's nothing to be done about it.

Hi John. Yes. 

Edit...

Afterthought: Yes but in a way no, because at some point it will have transformed in the process of moving - hence it will never actually have been a wuss in check.

Here is a video of them playing blitz at an earlier event. Video starts with music but then features commentary by both Nakamura and Carlsen.

Side note: On this subject there is a curiosity I've noticed. The wonderful feature that allows one to have pieces change automatically disappears when one has to manually enter additional notation. I'm hoping this can be remedied if we can somehow institute multiple point and click.

'FOR LONGER SHOTS, some other friendly piece must spot the target by being ADJACENT to it or TWO squares away in an unobstructed STRAIGHT LINE.'

By 'some other friendly piece' do you mean friendly to the target or the archer?