Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Every word a game. Anyone making a CV can use the HORSE method. Go to Frank
Truelove's piece list, for non-readers of books 'ECV' and 'Guide to
Fairy Chess'. Look up piece-names starting with these letters. Five
piece-types: Hunter, Overtaker, Rettah, Switcher, Equerry: HORSE. On 8x8
SHERREHS,  second row OOOOOOOO. HORSE, SHORE SHOER, HOSER, HEROS are of
course considered one and the same, differing only in being
FischerRandomChess-like randomizations. Invoking suitable Rules: If Rettah
is checked, the checker must be captured immediately. /// End of argument.
/// Three little pigs: houses of straw or of stone. Will a putative CV,
seeing the light of day, weather winds of fortune or test of time? ///
HORSE method morphs.  HORUS would be different. We need a 'U-'. Unicorn (Bishop + NN: 'NN' is neat shorthand of Nightrider: 'Nightrider' is mis-spelling of 'Knightrider': hey, naming alone is form of creativity: 'Nightrider' then as Knight that can continue.) Hence Hunter, Overtaker, Rettah, Unicorn, Switcher. /// How about ''RORSCHACH''?  That would be 9 piece-types. 12x8 96 squares can optimize that many. Reducer(r) Overtaker(O) Rettah(R) Switcher(S) Champion(C) Hunter(H) Alfil(A) Centaur(c) Hero(h). RORSCHACH.

Rorschach as a CV has nine(9) piece-types, and the initial array becomes:
Row 2 OOOOOOOOOOOO and Row 1 rSHCARRAchSr, for which see the previous
Comment. For convenience, apply the same Rule(s) -- just the one logical
Rule allows full extrapolation -- that keys off V. R. Parton's Rettah. In
the first examples, simply learn the new-piece methods of movement in
order to play. The CVs so far all fall in the ''Rettah family,''
meaning any checker of Rettah must be taken. Rettah Chess itself is
Parton's first game (1952) before Alice Chess (1953). Parton cleverly
names, because ''Rettah'' is ''Hatter'' backwards, Lewis Carroll
has some chess problems, and Mad Hatter appears in his fiction. Thus and
so, the HORSE method generalizes, endlessly. 'Thus/and/so' would also be
a variant. Templar/Hunter/Unicorn,
Switcher/Alfil/Nightrider/Dabbabah/Spy/Overtaker, nicely fitting also on
12x8 with 9 piece-types. [Ones not in Truelove's reference list are either in CVPage alphabetically or else under Altair.]

Okay, George, you've caught me. While I couldn't say everything I wanted
to [in particular, I really wanted to get 'neener, neener, neener' in
there too], in my crashed and burned game SpaceWar, the ffen diagram does
say '1D Nerd Neen'. [Yes, it was deliberate; I have a slightly better
arrangement for the pieces using all 16 pawns, too, but then I couldn't
get the '1'.]

By the HORSE method, CV enthusiasts can just think of a name and then
design the CV. This naming-first has been done with, we suspect, such as
Alice Chess, Dragonchess, Nemeroth, Altair, Tetrahedral, both Omega
Chesses, to mention a few. It is not so uncommon. In those cases, at least
probably, the name was percolating -- or so logical as to be compelling -- and
the exact Rules came later. As usual, Falcon Chess is intermediate case.
In January 1988, over 20 years ago, I had the (1930's) Novo Chess two
path (2,4)(3,4) squares in mind on 8x10, and 10x10. In other words,
straight-diagonal-diagonal, s-s-d, d-s-s, and diagonal-diagonal-straight,
as we called them then, in plain words.  Then around 1990 came the name
Falcon out of the blue. Then in December 1992, talking with veterinarian friend
Vera Cole, it occurred to me that straight-diagonal-straight and
diagonal-straight-diagonal are equally valid: three-path multi-path.
Actually far better, requisite taken as a whole and mathematically
speaking. Thus the B-N-R complement, the only one such, discovered late
1992, was already named. So good naming can come any time in the process.
The name can be afterthought, even painful for some, or can catalyze the
game-Rules themselves -- what we are exploring here in the follow-up.

Let's try one. CVs are ''a dime a dozen.'' That would be size 10x12.
Whenever seeing a word or phrase, anywhere any time, think Variant. Think
Rules. Think how to play it, like a songwriter. Now 'A/DIME/A/DOZEN' has
eleven piece-types.  Alfil(a)/ Dabbabah(d)/ Immobilizer(I)/ Mage(M)/
Equerry(E)/ Archbishop(A)/ Dragon(D)/ Overtaker(O)/ Zebra(Z)/ Elbow
Bishop(e)/ Nightrider(N).  That gives plausibly on 10x12:
Row 2, OOOOOOOOOOOO;  Row 1, ENadDeIMZaNA. No matter that within the same
game here we have Carrera's Centaur (BN) called both Equerry from 1870's
Bird's and Archbishop from 1920's Capablanca. It is convenient, and there
are still more names today for that same piece.
Interesting Rules: Pawns may initially step up to triply.  Immobilizer is
the royal piece and so must be checked, or taken, from afar.
Sources: Truelove's list, CVPage Alphabetical, Rococo, Altair, Bird's,
Falcon articles for multi-path Dragon.

Why do clocks run clockwise anyway? Chess Variants suggest modifications of
other Sports: Thoroughbred racing Variants. ''Big Brown's''
embarrassing last-place finish at Belmont Stakes, NY USA, June 2008: no
hysterical ''Triple Crown'' winner. (1) Variant One. High-Stakes Race
contenders run the tracks clockwise (European-style). Half the races actually should go clockwise for health reasons. Running CCW around ovals all the time distorts anatomies, because unsymmetrically left flanks always toe in for changes of direction, whilst right overdevelops striding. Such different stresses mean eventual genetic maladaptation by selection. (2) Change winning conditions. Why the Horse crossing finish line first always declared winner? a) Cross finish  line at greatest angle from 90 degrees, up to 45 degrees. b) Stepping backwards.  c) Over and back fifty metres and over again.  d) Thrice such.  (3) Horse racing occasionally features locals as jockey-riders and monkeys. The first to produce full on-board robotic computer-mount control winning North American race gets free entrance fees for entire barn. This will also encourage not just one but many androids fitted for saddling entire stables. No more jockeys, think
of savings. (Will some world-class jockey, robotically beaten, claim human intervention from a distance, like Gary Kasparov?) (4) Four is variation of (1). Half the field runs CW, and
half CCW. Head-on collision at Finish is Draw, Deadheat, called ''Draw by Header.''  [Next we look at ''Basketball,'' invented by Naismith 1891, to redesign toward full potential and outlast the Classical Arena.]

[Tom, Tom the Piper's son learned to play when he was young, / But the only tune that he could play was ''Over the Hills and Far Away.'']  Where do so-called ''Chess Grandmasters'' get their credentials? From good play at OrthoChess 8x8 with all its rote practice. Their ELO is a probabilistic system in application. Even ELO 2200 will defeat ELO 2600 certain expected percentage of the time. We are talking about one particular Rules set and one specific narrow time control. How would skill within those parameters translate to other board games? Problematically not automatically. As Joyce discloses, games with movements exclusively Night-, Bishop-, and Rook-like will benefit those experts exclusively used to RNB. As Gifford shows, shorter time controls will help the specialist in FIDE. That is why they always advocate Carrera variants from Bird to Seirawan. Suppose instead their ELOs were based on 80 years (FIDE was founded 80 years ago) of Los Alamos 6x6 (actually developed 1950's). Hey a thought experiment! Isn't that where Chess started in the first place, with thinking? Anyway, it is clear ELO2700 at little 
Los Alamos would not mean much at all. Likewise, high rating at standard-rules 8x8 does not mean all that much anymore in world of prolificism. Probably there will be lot of scatter in transferring
skill from small 8x8 to 9x9 (Shogi), 9x10 (Xiangqi), or 10x10
(Centennial). Some will do better than others. Many in CVPage, used to 
9x9, 9x10 and 10x10, could already win over the OrthoChess specialists all the way to the top, Kramnik, whoever, at personal games on larger boards with enough time available, as Joyce and others elucidate.

''To you insane world / But one reply --I refuse.'' -- Marina Tsvetaeva
Mutual stalemate is how this thread, ProblemThemesTwo, started in 2007.
http://www.chessvariants.org/usualeq.dir/msaprobl.html
Mutual assured destruction. Stalemate from the outset in two set-ups of
the two comments of 14.July.2007 and 7.July.2007. In both, neither Pawn nor
piece can move by either side, whoever goes first. The first 4 of the 13 comments are the relevant ones. There is no filtering mechanism, nor Pawns advanced past mid-board. It keeps full strength 50% piece density. It takes some of the wildest heterodox pieces imaginable. Only certain tailored exotics will do -- from Winther, Gilman, Betza, Duke -- all the 4 top formulators. They include elsewhere related ProblemThemes1, which shows just White unable to move legally in over 20 more example boards. The explanations for the double stalemates are below each board 14.July.2007 and 4.July.2007 by scrolling back these posts ''all messages'' above. Give it up is the fashioned theme, go do something else for a change, for there's no way to play it out, or even any first move. Beyond zugzwang. The one here 14.July uses Murmillo of Winther, Divergent Chess Rook and 5-stepping multi-path Dragon to advantage. The one 6.July uses 6-stepping Phoenix. The final frontier, a marvel to behold and thankfully nary a motion. As far as I know, Sam Loyd and T.R. Dawson did not try out the idea.  As long promised, for your own good, you'll never move again. By these boards, for everybody's own good. Sam Loyd and T.R. Dawson have no odd rules-set, not one, so why should you?  The only approach is scientific. The other (here we go again) is ''I like...''