Comments by judgmentality
Thinking about this gave me the giggles: -6 Beneath Contempt -5 Contemptible -4 Loathsome -3 Hideous -2 Miserable -1 Awful 0 Bad 1 Neutral / Average 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent 5 Awesome 6 Incomparably Fine If one wanted to have additional layers, we could initiate additional categories, such as for 'originality.' A lot of games are original but have bad gameplay or unoriginal but with good gameplay (I am reminded of Ben Good's essay here about Omega Chess). Still other categories for 'fun-ness,' presentation, appearance. Categories could be optionally listed according to ratings and categories with overall negative ratings should perhaps be shelved into different sections of chess variants after each receives a fair number of votes from the community of users (as opposed to just members). There is one thing that disturbs me most of all about how people rate games and I fear that there is sometimes a tendency to judge games without playing them, trying them out. Sometimes, it is not necessary to playtest a game, but I think too often a game is judged too much by certain superficial aspects that have little to do with worth of gameplay (as with books by their covers.) If one has a separate category strictly for rating 'gameplay' (as opposed to other aspects), it could be a category that could only be filled out after actually playing the game. If nobody is willing to play a game, that would usually imply something about the nature of the game. I suggest that as long as a game maintains a positive gameplay rating, it not be shelved to the negative ratings section. Because a game can fail every other mechanism or gradation of analysis, but if people enjoy playing it, that's probably a pretty good test, in my opinion. 'Confusing presentation, ugly appearance, highly unoriginal concept, but amusing gameplay.'
Both schemingmind.com and brainking.com have a number of 'hidden information' games with rules that are automatically enforced. You can try both sites out for free. They also both have a lot of mini-tournaments (that members can begin) for their variants, though neither has anything near the number of variants Game Courier has. One thing I like a lot about schemingmind.com and would like to see replicated at chessvariants.org is a pyramid system for each variant. You can join a pyramid and then challenge other people at your level. If you win, you go to a higher level and if you lose, you go down a level (or if you're at the bottom, you stay at the bottom).
I meant members as opposed to users, but probably there shouldn't be any restrictions on how a rating gets generated. I just meant mechanisms so that the value of a game isn't artificially inflated or deflated... By 'shelve' I just want to reinforce that I don't mean, be made unavailable, but just put in a separate section, and just as an optional way of listing according to rating.
I'm glad my tongue-in-cheek proposed worded descriptions amused some people as they did me. While I agree that using words like 'beneath contempt' to describe a variant may hurt people's feelings, I do think there is a serious reason to use a number system that includes 1 through 10. I do not think that 1 through 5 allows as much flexibility in analysis. A '4' in a 1 - 10 system is less harsh than 'Poor' in a 1 - 5 system. I think there is a serious purpose in having a rating system which allows a certain depth of analysis. That is so we can list pages according to their rating. This will allow visitors to the site, including ourselves, to sort through variants according to apparent quality. Of course, popularity will not always translate into quality, but at least we can have some sorting mechanisms in place that will help guide us through an increasingly prolific site. I would like to see all 10s rated together, all 9.4's rated together, all 5.32's rated together, etc (averages derived from cumulative ratings). This would encourage people to really take seriously the art of critiquing games. Does a game really deserve the rating of 10? People can go to the page on which 10s are listed and say one way or the other, thus influencing the way in which the games are listed. I would also like to ask that we take seriously the idea of separate rating systems for different aspects of games 'playability' 'originality' and 'appearance.' Again, the advantage is to evolve sorting mechanisms (sorting according to playability, etc). It would also help the designer to know what people did or didn't like about the games. I would also like to hear some feedback for a separate rating system in place for Game Courier post-game analysis, so that people who have actually played games can then have a chance to rate them. At the end of a game, there could be an option, 'Do you want to rate this variant?'
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Best not to play this variant then, Christine, or Bond James Bond may wish to have a word with you. http://www.chessvariants.com/diffmove.dir/oomost-chess.html
See 2 (quoted below). Promoting a royal pawn is an alternate method of winning. 2. In the unlikely event a royal pawn reaches the eighth rank, that shall be a game ending move counting as a win.
Sounds like fun. I have a joke game which wasn't meant to be a joke. It featured giraffes and it turned out that White could checkmate on his first move. I already submitted that to chessvariants yahoogroup (before I figured out the joke so the joke was on me, as it turned out).
J.K. L. and I also have the suggestion also of having a Valentine's Day themed variants (contest?) day.
We started working together shortly before last Valentine's Day but then realized we needed more time so maybe next Valentine's Day, I'll have some Valentine's Day related themes to submit. John and I thought of some ideas for a cupid piece, cupid's army pieces, romeo and juliet pieces, pieces that could fall in love with each other, pieces that suffered from unrequited love, etc.
Yes, you have five different points and I hope everyone reads them all. I endorse the proposal in its entirety. Just wanted to single out that one because it was a chance for me to advance the Valentine's Day theme idea.
Yes, that sort of thing, Christine, good idea, although it sounds a bit coercive. Perhaps certain pieces can be more vulnerable to seduction than others. A seduction could also involve being attracted to a piece that falls within a certain range (thus having to move one or two squares closer to it - opposite to the effect of the fearsome ghast of nemoroth). An attractive piece, literally... Well, one idea is that a piece falling in love with another piece has to follow it around. Such a thing could happen if a piece gets struck by a cupid piece which could operate similarly to the coordinator in ultima and such variants. The coordinator carries its move out by drawing an imaginary love triangle so to speak between itself, its king and another piece. A cupid piece could form triangles among all sorts of pieces, friendly and foe alike.
Speaking of joke games, in my first version of Quintessential Quadrupeds, both kings were in check from the start (again, this was unintentional and only hard experience taught me this).
Hi, Joe and Gary. I'm a huge fan of both of you and your chess variant contributions. There is a chess / go combo that really has me fascinated and I'm wondering whether either of you have checked it out. It's called Gess. http://www.chessvariants.com/crossover.dir/gess.html
The inventor of Benedict Chess which is played at Schemingmind.com also invented a variant called Cleopatra Chess which has a seduction idea like the one you mention. http://www.chessvariants.org/difftaking.dir/cleopatra.html
I like your idea, Joe. There is another variant somewhat germane to this discussion, and that is 'Diffusion Chess' by the brilliant and highly creative Alexandre Muñiz famous in part for the invention of the Windmill piece. Someone should definitely create a GO Board for the Game Courier preset so we can try out some of these nifty chess-go variants. http://www.chessvariants.org/32turn.dir/diffusionchess.html
Haven't zillionsed it yet. Good idea. Should do that. Good point about the first one. I know Eric is very distrustful of it and our assumption is that White may very well be able to gain a quick winning position by playing the opening accurately. The impression I'm getting about the second one - hidden - is that it is 'cozy' because the guards, wazirs and ferzes protect points that are traditionally weak in FIDE.
Hi, Stephen. In our game against you, Eric and I were under the apparently mistaken assumption that we could confer with one another. Clearly didn't help us much but that's what we did. Now, I'm reading over these comments and I see that we weren't supposed to, otherwise you wouldn't have the admonition, 'never trust your partner.' Can I suggest that you allow partners to confer with one another as part of the rules of the world championship. This would increase game quality and allow for partners to feel that they are truly cooperating with one another. How will the tournament be structured? With what time parameters? To everyone else: 4-Way Chess is great fun and I encourage everyone to enter this tournament, either by themselves or with a partner. Is anyone interested in being my partner? (even though I've only played one game of 4-Way Chess and lost quickly?)
Hi, Roberto.
Not a chess variant, no, but the piece drop is not unknown to chess variants (as Shogi).
There are a few chess variants that use a Go board and integrate concepts from Go. Diffusion Chess is one. As we make other chess-go hybrids available for play on Game Courier, such as Gess, I shall call attention to them here.
Your suggestion that we add other games is a good one because it will provide further inspiration for chess variant designers to hybridize.
Ah, David, I'll bet you're right. I'll bet they do move like Camels. Intriguing way to describe their movement, strictly in terms of diagonals!
Which in fact makes it almost, but not quite, identical to Super Cardinal Chess. I bought a copy of that once, and I must admit to some disappointment. The pieces were light plastic. The design is not unattractive though. To be honest, I've never tried playing it , but with different people re-discovering it (10 x 10 chess with ordinary pieces and two camels added), perhaps there is something to the gameplay.It's rather trendy to re-name the camel for some reason. It's been done in Renniassance Chess (General) and more recently in Clash of Civilizations Chess (Unicorn). In these variants (Agincourt and Super Cardinal, we have a very similar setup and two different names for the same camel piece, Cardinal and Archer.
I guess great pieces have a tendency to attract many names and uses. I designed a game once called Camel-Cardinal chess which featured one cardinal and one camel. I guess I could have called it Cardinal-Cardinal Chess.
Well, as you say, what's in a name. My answer is 'a lot' and I think your unicorn is the best unicorn!
Did you design that piece? It's quite lovely. I'd like to see it uploaded and used in a preset.
Jared, I agree that the tiger should have stripes :-)
Meanwhile, we've been using this particular tiger in one of Eric Greenwood's Courier Modified variants, Courier Mod 3 and casually referring to him as a 'mountain lion.' He moves as a non-leaping lion that moves one or two spaces outward in any direction.
I don't know which variants / presets / zillions games have been implementing the same piece and using it for a different purpose. It would be nice to know though, and also know more about who uses a 'tiger' piece and for which purpose. I dissuaded Eric from introducing a new 'tiger' this morning, partly because there is no alfaerie piece which really looks much like a tiger yet. If someone stripes that one though, it would do, I'll say.
69 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.