Single Comment

(modified comment) <BR>I haven't yet studied the ZRF extensively, although it is Excellent if it works, and final-version-will-be-Excellent if it doesn't, but I wish to mention that in my soon-to-be-released Chess on a Larger Board with not-so-few Pieces Dropped - a 12x8 version with the later drop of supernumerary baroque pieces which do not find their place in the starting setup -, I use such macros as <BR>(define 1000-points ( <BR> (verify (not-in-zone? full-zone)) <BR> add add add add add add <BR>)) <BR>where full-zone is the game board and the squares carrying the pieces to be dropped, but <I>not</I> some extra bogus squares, such as White-Throne, WhiteKingMoved or OFF, which carry no actual piece. <BR>The (1000-points)s or (10000-points)s are embedded in a low-priority (bogus-moves) move-type which enables Zillions to discard them at once while adding their value to the piece values. <BR>Otherwise, Zillions would value my Can(n)on - a flip piece - more than a Queen, or a Halfling-Withdrawer just like a Halfling-Advancer. <BR>(The drop of a piece also creates a bogus piece Mark, which incites Zillions to drop the pieces when it has nothing better to do.) <BR>I wrote two hours ago that extra piece types change the value enhancement brought by such macros, because before I introduced my latest piece, (1000-points) required ten adds in lieu of the current six, and Zillions valued the Orthochess Pawn at 6000 points as opposed to the current 8000, but now I believe that the main reason is that I suppressed some extra bogus squares. Anyway, not-on-board? instead of (not-in-zone? full-zone) doesn't work.