Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

How about thanking me for the work I put down, instead? I decided to
abandon this forum to avoid being hacked on. Obviously it didn't help. In
fact, I have lately been been using four board types: Gustavian, H-board,
the 80-squared board, and the standard board. The reason why I link 
externally is because I cannot upload any files because of some error. 
Even though I have created many new interesting pieces this is regarded 
as so unimportant so I shouldn't be allowed more than one little external 
link page. It is astoundingly ungenerous! I do not simply add a new piece 
to a board arbitrarely. All my variants have been tested to create the setup
which is the most strategically many-sided. Many setups simply don't work. I 
have also created new graphics. I have introduced these pieces in a regular
piece context so it's easier to get a feel for them, and decide upon the
piece-value of the new piece. All the games have a different character,
and they work very fine. My idea is that the new pieces can later be
inserted in other more unusual contexts, with several different piece
types. Namik Sade has already begun doing this work, in two new games, as
far as I know. By using my programs you can decide whether you like the
piece, and whether it's suitable in your own game construct. 

I have endeavoured to create pieces (I have discarded several) which
function well together with the Western piece set. As their piece-value
seem to rhyme with the traditional pieces, they can be mutually exchanged,
something which greatly increases the combinative, and strategical,
possibilities. I suspect this aspect has received too little attention in
many game constructs. One should not simply add many pieces to a board
without investigating their relations, in terms of value. The game could
become cramped an uninteresting, because the pieces must often avoid each
other, and the combinative and strategical possibilities are thereby
reduced. Those people, like 'none' (a suitable name), who think that my
games are not innovative enough, simply don't understand chess. What
makes a chess variant interesting is what goes on *under* the surface, in
terms of interesting combinations, endgame qualities, and strategical
brainteasers. With these new pieces new forms of combinations are
introduced to the chessboard, which have never occured before in chess
history. Such aspects decide whether a game has original and striking
characteristics, and not whether it appears, on the surface, to be
innovative. If you create a game on a star-shaped board, for instance, and
put many unusual pieces on it, this does not necessarily mean that it's a
genuinely innovative variant.

I am convinced that my variants are good games, but it should be possible
to create even better games by introducing these new pieces in other
contexts. That's for other innovators to ponder over. Moreover, it's
likely that the new methods of movement, the bounce-movement, the
collision-capture, two leg cannon capture, etc., can stimulate yet more
piece-types. In Doublebarrel Chess I introduce practical new rules for 
introducing a pair of extra pieces to the standard board. My contributions 
should stimulate game constructors, and fairy problem composers, while 
people with inferiority complexes ought to shut up.

While I agree that Mats Winter was a little rude in his 'shup up' comment, I also feel that the comment was warranted. Someone came here and anonymously posted that all of Mats' variants deserve only one page. Mats was legitimately hurt. We know nothing about the anonymous person who said this comment; when people are allowed to post anonymously negative, hurtful things, people who are offering legitimate things, such as Mats, are put off and may end up leaving the site.

Anonymous trolls are very dangerous to internet discussion forums. They can very well chase off anyone who isn't a troll, destroying the forum. I saw trolls destroy Usenet, I saw trolls destroy Slashdot, I've seen them seriously damage Wikipedia, and I'm seeing them destroy Digg. I'm worried that they may start coming here and destroy the quality of this web site.

I think the policy of approving anonymous posts is an excellent one; I think it is what has saved chessvariants.org so far.

Again, this is a forum for Chess Variant inventors, not for anonymous trolls to flame Chess Variant inventors. I hope it stays that way.

- Sam

As someone whose recent comment on a variant of my own was sympathetic to the views of the anonymous contributor I should perhaps point out that I was not that contributor. If you are sure that your number of variants will remain small, then fine. On the other hand, if you eventually invent as many as I have and want a page for each, it will make things unwieldy. It might be interesting to see your existing variants grouped by board shape, and certainly would to see an article giving an overview of the new pieces -

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/mainquery.php?type=Piece&orderby=LinkText lists the kind of pages I mean. Another small point: the pop-up when the page linked to is opened is annoying.

A point about the problem in uploading images: yes, I am suffering from that as well, but only with board of too complex a shape for ffen diagrams to deal with, which is not the case with this lot. Adding ffen diagrams would certainly make it easier to view and judge the variants.

I cannot upload any images, I get an error, so I could not write an
article. But my bifurcation pieces would really need an overview article.
Some of these pieces are good, I think.

Mats

But collision movement, and bounce-movement, were designed to be wholly
intuitive, coinciding with physical laws (cannon-jumps might be more
difficult however). When a billiard ball 'collides' orthogonally with
another ball, it will continue in one of two diagonal directions (or come
to a halt). It also collides against the margin and then continues in
another direction. Likewise 'bouncing' occurs when the piece bounces off
in the alignment direction (against another piece), like in a pinball game.
Of course, it will take time to understand these pieces. Perhaps they will
never become popular. But, regardless, it's fun to try something new. At 
least it's interesting to investigate their properties.

Mats

Personally, I'd rather see Andy spend his time figuring out how to do a queen vs. king and king mate on a Gustavian board than troll here on chessvariants.org, but that it just my opinion.

- Sam

'Of course, it will take time to understand these pieces. Perhaps they will never become popular. But, regardless, it's fun to try something new. At least it's interesting to investigate their properties.'

Agree. Was only speaking for myself when said I find them difficult. Certainly make good problem pieces, and good game pieces for those who can visualize them well.

Interesting variant that stars the secutor piece type, and the Gustavian board (i.e. extra corner squares). Seems to deserve to be played more often on Game Courier. I'd estimate the Secutor to be worth about a Chinese Cannon - so about half a chess rook, or 5.5/2=2.75.