Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I would really appreciate it if someone could give me some feedback on this game so far. That would help a lot.

I would like to help you but you need to put some more effort in writing the article. There are tools on this website which help with pictures!

Before drawing my diagram, I was wondering what would be the best pieces to use for peasants, guards, and treasurers. For the rest I will just use the standard chess pieces.

Interesting. Probably not a "chess variant" by most folks' standards (but that wouldn't stop me from publishing).

The scoring desperately needs some examples. The freezing of secured territories is particularly confusing. And how do larger territories score or become secured?

An example diagram is ready for you and the points calculation for a territory. I'll do latter on some more calculations for you for the remaining territories.

Replicating the local conditions (say, the 3x4 rectangle) before the example would be helpful for following along. Formatting the scoring in a table may also be nicer?

I didn't see anything in the example that seemed to match this rule:

Two, or more pieces of the same kind ( two or three, or more Knights, two or three, or more Rooks etc.) controlling a territory have their values multiplied first (before being added to the overall value of the group).

An omission, or did I misunderstand?

This page is ready.

I believe this game deserves more attention from the editors. I know, the game is quite unusual, and people prefer to stick to more classical chess variants, but please, give it a chance.

Can you provide the scoring for the example?

In particular, are c5 and d6 "joined"? It's not clear from the description what exactly that means, and what "control" means.

The game end also seems a little fuzzy; won't someone just refuse to move as soon as they're ahead at the beginning of their turn?

I do like the simplifications you've made so far.

Just made the calculations for this example. Please let me know if there is anything else to consider.

Can anybody have a look at the updated rules please? Many thanks.

It looks like almost nobody on this site seems to like maths. Whether you publish this chess variant or not, I will stop bothering you. One day, you will realise that this is the greatest and most challenging chess variant ever invented.

Actually, many of us here like math. If I remember correctly Fergus has a PhD in logic. I have a PhD in applied mathematics. And HG has just been invited to participate in the Physics Nobel prize decertation ceremony, I'm sure he is quite good, and that, leaving aside his programming skills. Here, we are maybe 100 people dealing with thousands of chess variants, many of them very good. There is so much we can play. To be honest I had not read well your article. It is a difficult Idea to grasp at a glance. I have published weird games too, and I have had even crazier ones. There are 8 people here who have favorited my two main games. And that is a lot here. So I'm not sure what your expectations are. But while you are here, as I see you have a Romanian name and I think you can help me a bit. I can't access these two sites: http://jocly.com/ https://talkchess.com/ I was told by a friend that probably they are not accessible from Romania. May you check if you can access them? Maybe I have a problem.

If I remember correctly Fergus has a PhD in logic.

Philosophy, which is the department that teaches logic courses.

Thanks. I checked the two sites and I can't access them either.

It looks like almost nobody on this site seems to like maths.

You forgot about Go and Rummy. I’ve never been good at Go, and all I know of Rummy is that it is a card game. As for math, I did well in the math classes I took, but I did not take many after high school, and I do not do math recreationally.

One day, you will realise that this is the greatest and most challenging chess variant ever invented.

It has a lot of competition, and it takes more than being the most challenging to make it the greatest. Also, if we’re so uninterested in this game that we can’t be bothered to understand its rules, there is just no way that we will ever realize it is the greatest and most challenging of chess variants. As for myself, I’m not even sure this is a chess variant. Although it uses Chess equipment, it seems to be a very different sort of game than chess.

As for myself, I’m not even sure this is a chess variant. Although it uses Chess equipment, it seems to be a very different sort of game than chess.

Though it’s rather good (at least at first glance). Idea is very interesting.

Ben, who is our resident mathematician, has been handling this submission, and he asked some questions I have not seen any answer to yet. When we ask questions about a submission, we will normally leave it unpublished until our questions are answered. So, instead of complaining that people don't like "maths", you should be cooperating with Ben and answering his questions.

I can't access these two sites: http://jocly.com/ https://talkchess.com/

The former does not work from the USA either. It is probably down, because the development of Jocly cost a lot of money, and it was never profitable. The latter is an American site and works from the USA.

Thanks for telling me about the websites!

I can't think of any outstanding questions now. But the rules are disjuncted and conversational, making them harder to parse (for me). I was planning on taking a pass at editing when I next have the time.

I actually addressed all the points raised in the previous comments. It took me several months to figure out the rules and make this game work. If you do a game simulation on Musketeer Board Painter you will see that this game is actually fun to play and has no more issues about the rules.

As a person who likes solving difficult puzzles I believe that this game deserves to be taken seriously. Please do a game simulation on Musketeer Board Painter following the above rules and let me know what you think about it.

I've taken an editing pass, mostly moving passages around for better grouping. @Florin feel free to modify anything that I've changed, but I think the only actual rule difference I've made is regarding territories with tied contributions from the two players: since they make no difference to the comparative score of the two players, but I think counting them as positive makes the score that's up for grabs easier to understand, I like splitting the value instead of zeroing it out.

In re-reading and -writing, I still don't understand merged territories. Does "if they can control them" actually mean something? (What stops someone from putting two empty squares next to each other?) Is scoring modified in any meaningful way? (I did replace "8 settler", "5 settler" and "3 settler" territories by "center" "side" and "corner" resp. in the bonus section thinking that's what you meant, but I guess if you have joined or even diagonally adjacent territories they mean different things.)

I don't know how to set up a simulation in musketeer board painter.

In the example endgame, in the newest edition of the rules black would get another move after white passes. I haven't stared at it for any significant amount of time, but I think e5 pushes d5-c5 looks interesting, depending on joined territory rules. It would put three black kings on the horizontal boundary of the new territory, and if it qualifies for the bonus that's worth 240 total (original plus bonus)? Perhaps that also suggests there needs to be a rule about repetition: don't want two opposing royals pushing a single piece back and forth.