The Chess Variant Pages

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Fergus Duniho wrote on 2017-08-20 UTC

I have replaced the listcomments.php script with a new script. This new script uses PDO methods instead of mysql functions, and it changes how it pages through the comments. The old script used the offset method, which grew more expensive with each page of links further away from the origin. The new script uses the first and last keywords to indicate a specific starting point from which to count ahead or count down additional comments. This works just as quickly for any point in the Comment table, and it provides links that will identify the same set of comments even when additional comments are added.

The default is now to list comments in ascending order instead of descending order, and order=DESC must be set to list comments in descending order. This is to make it explicit when comments are being listed in descending order. The new script uses the sort keyword instead of the sortbydate keyword, and it can take different column names for values. It defaults to CommentID. But until I change the links, it will change the order value to DESC, so that old links can still function as they used to. The link on the home page has already been corrected, since it did not include any parameters. For further details on parameters, click on the Help link, or add the help parameter to the URL.

Jeff Rients wrote on 2004-09-08 UTC
External links will continue to die at an alarming rate as long as people continue to believe that publishing chess variants as board games is a commercially viable endeavor.

Anonymous wrote on 2004-09-07 UTCPoor ★
This comment is about the whole site:
Do you know just how many dead links to external pages you have?

John Lawson wrote on 2002-06-25 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I noticed the unobtrusive random page link a few days ago, and I wanted to let you know that I really like it. The CVP has become so huge that there is no way one can remember everything on it. The random page allows for serendipitous discovery and adventure.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-27 UTC
Done and done!

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-27 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Also links for the Subject Inserted confirmation!

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Thanks. The link back to What's New goes to the redirection page. Did you mean to do it that way?

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-26 UTC
Links added. Thanks for the suggestion.

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-24 UTC
One thing you might consider for the New Comment Added acknowledgement is a link back to the What's New page. Now I either back button through several pages, or just use my bookmark.

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-21 UTC
David - <p>I thought you got $100k/year! Vanilla is always best in software.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-21 UTC
I appreciate all the feedback, especially constructive criticism. Please do keep me advised of what you like, and especially what you don't like. I will continue to develop and hopefully improve this system. But also keep in mind that this is part-time, volunteer work for me, so I prefer to keep things simple and easy.

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-21 UTCGood ★★★★
David - <p>Just feeding back to let you know I really like all the improvements you've made to the comment system. It looks like people other than the usual ones are stating to use it, too. (I guess I'm going to have to learn what an HTML tag is, though. I'm not ashamed of my ignorance; I know things about mainframe computers.) <p>I at first thought the Minimal New page was an odd idea, but it turns out to be great, because it refreshes in the blink of an eye. <p>The only quibble is I don't like to have to expand long comments, but I'm probably in the minority, and cerainly against fashion.

Jianying Ji wrote on 2002-04-18 UTC
I got to say, the new format looks great. Also this website continuously amazes me in its depth and breath, and is an endless inspiration to me on my ideas concerning many topics. And has given me new perspective on many things.

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-16 UTC
No, no, not a smaller font, PLEASE! Some of us use bifocals, and have enough trouble already.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-16 UTC
For those who constantly check the what's new page, I have created the
'Minimal New' page, which just gives a short summary on when the latest
comment was made, and when the latest item was added or updated. The
address is:

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-16 UTC
Truncating a comment which contains HTML code is non-trivial. Strange things happen when closing tags get truncated off the end. So, I have nothing against HTML-based comments, but since truncating them would involve much more work, I chose to simply avoid. My alternate approach may be to use a smaller font.

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-16 UTC
Why discriminate against non-HTML comments? I have no clue how to create an HTML comment, and feel slighted. (I do know what HTML stands for, however.)

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-16 UTC
I have made a change in the comment listing page. All non-HTML comments that are over 20 lines long are truncated at 20 lines with a link to view the entire comment. This was done is response to unusually long comments. I am not complaining about these comments, just trying to reduce the amount of scrolling required when browsing. Feel free to make alternate suggestions as this feedback/messaging system is a work-in-progress.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Hey, David. Somehow my last comment in the 'Rook-Level Chess' thread turned into its own 'Rook-Level' thread (no 'Chess'). Any ideas? <p><i>Hey Peter, I think it's fixed. There was an issue with spaces I think. Time will tell...</i>

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
It would be nice if a place to click to create a new subject at the top of the comments page. Right now, as far as I can tell, you have to page down until you find an existing thread, and click there.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-05 UTC
Ok, I'll look into extending the feedback system to allow some sort of message threading based on something other than existing pages. I understand why people do not like the yahoo group system, although it does have some nice features. Give me a few days to come up with something.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-05 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
The comment system allows you to see the whole discussion on one page,
instead of needing to access (and then page down past all the garbage) a
new page for each message.

This is a huge advantage, and I expect that people will abandon the yahoo
thingy and flock to the comment pages.

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-05 UTC
I fall between Peter and David here.  When I write a comment, I don't
really plan it.  Something in the page, or another comment sets me off, and
I just start writing.  If it leads somewhere not completely germaine to the
page being commented on, so be it.

BUT, the result is that discussions that are potentially interesting or
inspiring get buried attached to pages that effectively conceal them from
later browsers.  (Look at the recent discussion attached to the
'Archoniclastic Chess' page.)

To do the thing properly, comments should be limited to the variant they
are attached to, and any flight of fancy should be moved to the discussion
group.  I think this is against human nature (at least mine) and I would
probably never make 50% of those posts.  Furthermore, the discussion group
posting may be cryptic outside of context of the variant page that inspired

On the other side, the number of people 'misusing' the comment system are
relatively small.  It would be a huge waste of time and resources to build
a parallel discussion system for a handful of 'chatterers'.  Also, the
public discussion board has a better possibility of attracting random

Maybe a compromise is possible.  Let me note here that I am no programmer,
and I have no idea how difficult any particular idea would be to implement.
 An idea that seems simple to me might be to allow the writer of an
extended comment to select a small set of keywords ('Ruddigore',
'double-move') which the comment system could also search for.

Better ideas?

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-04 UTC
It would seem kind of redundent to have you build a discussion group when we already have one. However. There would be some advantages to a home-built discussion board: <ul> <p> <li>It could be integrated with the comment system. What <strong>I</strong> would like to have is a single system where both comments and general discussion are displayed in order of posting. It seems awkward to me to have two different systems with two different user interfaces for one purpose: discussing Chess variants. And I know for a fact there are for both people who use one but not the other.</li> <p> <li>It would be faster (it would hard to be slower!).</li> <p> <li>It wouldn't have all of the stupid advertising the current incarnation of the discussion group has.</li> </ul> <p> But still, it would seem like a lot of work for something which we already have, if not in ideal form.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-04 UTC
While I agree that discussions of new game ideas are valuable, I don't think they are appropriate for the feedback and rating system. It's better to keep the discussions relating to a particular page on our internal feedback system, and use our discussion group when the commentary digresses to new game ideas. The discussion group has many more features than my crude feedback system, so I think it's better to use that. That is, unless you want me to build a discussion group system that lives on the chess variant pages... :)

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
So, given the amount of chatter about Chatter Chess and Ruddigore Chess and
so on, do we need 'virtual' comment pages so we can discuss variants that
haven't actually been posted?  Then, going forward, the comments will be
where they belong.  I mean, who's going to think about looking for comments
about Ruddigore Chess attached to the Archoniclastic Chess page?

Also, to David, I like the little subtle link to the recent comments at the
top of the What's New page, but I don't think in GMT.  Maybe we could
include the current time in GMT, or the time elapsed since the last
comment, or something like that.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
I'll add <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> to my 'to do' list, but since that's already 1.83 miles long, don't expect it this quarter. But I will almost certainly write a Zillions Rules File for it, and bully poor Tony Quintanilla into playing it with me by e-mail so I can see if it works or not before publishing. Someday. <p> (I realize I don't <em>need</em> Zillions to play the game by e-mail, but it makes it more convenient and enforces rules that might get missed. Also, I find programming a game a good way to examine a game's rules in details.)

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
If you think Ruddigore Chess seems playable, by all means test a bit more
and write it up! You're the inventor. I just blathered away with a crude
sketch of the rules and a crazy suggestion, you saw the possibilities and
found the specific rule-set that makes it work -- in other words, you do
all the hard work, it's your game.
You'll mention me, of course, but you know I would never have pursued the
idea further...

Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
David, will this page be linked to the side bar somehow? That would help in the future when it is not longer the new item in the Feedback page.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-02 UTC
It seems to me that <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> actually seems playable! But I would suggest that the first three turns be declared a Bank Holiday with no capturing required.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
David, Peter, great idea! This makes it easy to comment, is practical, timely, and should have a wide audience.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Most of the recent flood of commants/feebback was caused by my article on
''Chatter Chess'''', which has not yet been seen.
Imagine what may happen if chatter chess ever sees the light of day, will
the comment system be able to handle such volume?
These are important considerations....

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★
if a comment is submitted in non-html mode, things that appear to be html
tags are not printed. But the preview prints them!!!
The previous line appears blank but contained left-angle-bracket. P,
right-angle-bracket. In preview mode, I saw the html tag, but when viewing
comments I see a blank line.
This is inconsistent behavior.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★
if a comment is submitted in non-html mode, things that appear to be html
tags are not printed. Are they interpreted? here's an hr:<HR>
The previous line appears blank but contained left-angle-bracket. P,
This is inconsistent behavior.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★
if a comment is submitted in html mode, its left margin is indented.
Non-html comments start at page left.
The above is true when viewing with lynx. Your mileage may vary if you
any of the inferior alternatives.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Perhaps html mode does not work. I see no link about cockles. <P> It should be noted that those who use an invisible smiley must make arrangements to pay a null royalty to me. It was I who invented it, for use in afu. <P> I will type in a <A HREF=>link</a> to test html-mode comments.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
What about ratings abysmal, mediocre, and superb?

Keeping the discussion alive alive O, I always thot that cockles were a
type of dialectic seafood, suitable for the musselbound.

However, if in doubt, the question can be submitted to alt.usage.english, a
font of linguistic wisdom.

Submit without review is not necessary as long as it is made obvious that
submit can be found within review: we are accustomed to pesky and insecure
programs asking us 'are you sure, are you really reaaly sure, should I do
what you said or are you a jerk?

99 and 44/100ths, not 99.4; Ivory Soap (tm). It's your turn in the barrel,
as Safire recently apologized for saying -- the phrase is the punchline of
a *dirty* joke, you see.

Many adages and colloquialisms come from jokes or from Ad Age; and they are
ephemeral, for example who today would know what ad agency I one worked for
if I specify that it sounds like a suitcase falling down a flight of
stairs, as Marcel Duchamp once said. Oh, sorry, it was Fred Allen who said

As comedians in the Borscht Belt once asked, 'Where's the beet?'

Back to topic, how can there be a Comdey Chess, in which every move is a

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-02 UTC
Regarding 'cockles', below.  Note that the link actually provides no
solution to the meaning of 'cockles' in this sense.  Neither does the
Oxford English Dictionary, which has much the same info as the editor's
link.  The upshot is, we don't know what 'cockles' are.
I once read a hypothesis that suggested that expressions that were used
formulaicly, but made no sense (like 'dead as a doornail') were actually
the punchlines of forgotten jokes.  Sounds dopey, but think of how many
punchlines you use as metaphors in colloquial conversation, and how often
you really tell the jokes they go with.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Previous comment has an invisble smiley.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Once more, with feeling! <p> John Lawson wrote: <blockquote> 'And on the other topic, once youopen the door to Gilbert and Sullivan chess, logic dictates all sorts of generalizations (Aristophanes chess, Tolstoi chess, Rowling chess, dunno)' </blockquote> And all of them potentially good articles that would warm the cockles an an editor's heart (assuming they have any -- and just what the heck <em>are</em> cockles anyway?). When do you think you can start? <g> <p>Editor's note: <a href="">cockles</a> --DH.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Thanks for the space, David (my mind, <em>tidy</em>? -- now there's a strange concept!). <p>[I'd have said you had a beautiful mind, but that phrase was already taken. --DH]

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Ok, it's here. The general comments page. Have at it!!

42 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.