[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Ratings & Comments
Chaturanga 4-84. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces and an 84-square board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 01:40 PM UTC:<P>A CV in which the players have goals is my Hi-Lo Chess, in which each player secretly selects one of the goals W, L, D, WL, WD, LD, or WLD.<P>In order to get more variety in the selection, we used to write a pack of paper slips with goals and require the players to shuffle and use the top goal from the pack.<P>
There must be a 'mate me' rule and a 'perp me' rule -- if at the end of your move your opponent has a mate in 1 or a perpetual check, you can require that it be played.<P>
Scoring: if you have one goal and achieve that goal you get 1 point for the game; if you have 2 goals you get 1/2 point if you succeed. If you have all 3 goals, you get 1/3 point no matter what -- you can gain by preventing your opponent from achieving his goal.<P>
Inspiration: High-Low Poker.<P>
<HR>
Hi-LO Chess is extremely well tested, I have played more than a hundred games face-to-face with a human opponent. Fro the number of games played, you can guess that it's an enjoyable game.<P>
It's a game of incomplete information. You try to guess your opponent's goal while concealing your own; and then you can plan and execute a brilliant combination the purpose of which is to checkmate yourself.<P>
I don't remember the date of Hi-Lo, but it's probably late 1960s.<P>
Well, the game has been played a fair number of times against the computer
and at least once by e-mail vs a human opponent, and it seemed to play
fairly well (of course, there might be something wrong with it, after all
I <em>lost</em> :)).
<hr>
A play order of AABB instead of the more usual ABAB for a four-player
partnership game transforms it into a limited double-move variant, rather
like one whose name I can't recall, where you get to move a piece on the
left side of the board and one on the right side each turn. Limited
double-move variants tend to be fun and exciting, so I can see the appeal,
and spliting the double-move between partners has some piquant aspects,
particularly if communications are restricted and reading minds is not at
least one of the partner's strengths. I think I may add an AABB variant
as to the Chaturanga 4-84's ZRF (still double-dummy, alas).
<p>
As for bid multiplayer Chess with a dummy . . . Could be done. Should it? :)
<hr>
Thanks for the kind words, Tony.
By the way, if anyone were interested, the link to the World Camelot Federation website, where the rules of Grand Camelot are posted is: http://communities.msn.com/WORLDCAMELOTFEDERATION
Chaturanga 4-84 
. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces on an 84-square board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A variant has been added where both moves of a side are made in sequence, instead of alternating; a sort of limited double-move version. Thanks to John Lawson for the idea!
General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
📝David Howe wrote on Thu, Apr 4, 2002 06:10 PM 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... :)
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.
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
it.
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
searchers.
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?gnohmon wrote on Fri, Apr 5, 2002 03:30 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★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 chessvariants.com comment pages.
📝David Howe wrote on Fri, Apr 5, 2002 04:13 PM 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.
Chatter Chess. Variant based on the idea of line chatter where rider pieces can switch to other friendly pieces' lines of movement. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]You know, I can't see any reason (aside from restraint) why stepping
pieces couldn't take advantage of chatter even if they can't create it
(sort of like a low-power line mixed in with higher-power lines).
Then, if a stepper could move to
a square containing a rider's line, it could ride away on it!
In that case, castling and Pawn-double-step could definitely generate
chatter lines (and we'd have to distinguish between capturing and
non-capturing chatter lines). Of course, chasing down a King supported by a Bishop could
be rather difficult . . .
<p>
The above would probably result in a fairly crazy game, but it would also
come closer to working with different armies.
<p>
And for the list of possibly unplayable games, I'd like to add
<u><a href='../d.betza/chessvar/confu01.html'>Confusion 1b</a> Chatter
Chess</u>.
gnohmon wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 02:21 AM UTC:That was an excellent chatter response. Responsible usage of the rules tells us that a piece which takes only one step ends its move after that one step and therefore is not eligible to chatter. However, your idea sounds like a lot of fun! One can always arbitrarily restrict Kings and Pawns from participating in the fun; and I think this would be necessary, not only because it appears to be too difficult to chase down a King supported by multiple riders (note that 'a K supported by a Bishop' can only run towards the Bishop), but also because the offensive uses of Chattering Pawns would dominate the game, as they do in N-Relay II. Decimal Chatter Chess, on a 10x10 board, would become quite interesting if you had the Pawns on the third rank, all Riders on the first, and a second rank full of weak steppers -- the usual suspects, W, F, Crab, Barc, A, and D -- because the early play would be dominated by the weak pieces being thrown forwards by the power of the riders. You'd need to arrange your pieces very carefully, making room for the weak pieces to get past the Pawns, setting up intersecting lines for the riders, and putting the weakies where they could join in the fray but not get in the way. All the while trying to maintain a defense against the pesky foe.
gnohmon wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 02:24 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★People should know that the excellent diagram that makes it so easy to visualize the chatter moves was added by the editor, not the author. The editor gets an 'excellent' rating for this page.
Omega Chess. Rules for commercial chess variant on board with 104 squares. (12x12, Cells: 104) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would like to announce that I am going to be running an Omegachess tournament by email on Richard's Play By Email server at http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv In order to play in the tournament you must have a PBM userid. Check out http://www.gamerz.net/tutorial.html and http://www.gamerz.net/commands.html if you are new and want to sign up for a free userid and password on the server. You do not have to have ever played Omegachess before on the server to compete in this tournament. If you would like to play in the event please email me your PBM userid to DavidNYJfan@hotmail.com I have not yet decided exactly how I am going to structure the Omega tournament. It will probably be a round robin tournament, with between 4 to 8 games in the first round, and a certain number of players advancing to a second and final round. I would also like to announce that I am also going to run a chess tournament on PBM too. This is traditional orthodox chess! This tournament is open to the first 25 players who email me to enter. I will be creating five 5-man sections. Each player will play a total of 4 games, 2 as white and 2 as black, one game against each of the other players in the tournament. The 5 section winners will then advance to a final 5-man section for the championship of the tournament. In the event of a tie for first place in a section the first tiebreaker is head-to-head result. In the event of a draw or a 3-way tie where A beat B, B beat C and C beat A, all tied players advance to the finals and a larger final section will be created. Again, to compete in this tournament you must have a PBM userid. You may enter both tournaments if you like. When emailing me please make sure to specify which tournament you are entering. Thanks again and good luck!!
Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jere wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 12:13 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★I had not played chess in 40 years. It was a great refresher; covered all
the rules in a straight-forward manner. Nice job.
Xiangqi FAQ. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jeffry Simmons wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 03:01 PM UTC:Good ★★★★Very informative! But are the listings for clubs, organizations, and
world's strongest players current?
David Howe wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 03:26 PM UTC:Ok guys, I've created a minimal discussion system. Feel free to start using
it (and breaking it). I still have more work to do, but it's basically
functional. Please do let me know if you have any particular requests or
criticisms (or kudos :)...
Xiangqi FAQ. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Howe wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 03:48 PM UTC:I just visted <a href='http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=rec.games.chinese-chess'>rec.games.chinese-chess</a> on dejanews.com and it appears as if the FAQ hasn't been updated in some years. If anyone knows where we can get an up-to-date (or more up-to-date) FAQ document, please contact us. Thanks.
King with a Shotgun. Twice each game, the King can make a non-moving Rook capture. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Just as a note from the author: Ed's variant of doing queen attacks does work well, also. But don't get too trigger-happy- it's good defense. Make sure you don't get blindsided by a bishop in the classic variant! The major downside to the queen shot variant is that then you can't reasonably use a bishop to move in for the kill; you pretty much have to lose two pieces to the shotgun, unless you use knights well... -- Adam Norberg (sgamer [att] swbell [dott] net )
Worse than Worthless. A discussion of pieces with negative value, and the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anonymous wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 10:01 PM UTC:Good ★★★★I'd like to see this article expanded to include other types of ...er.. cursed pieces and cursed players. For example, how about Restless (or Hyperactive or Flying Dutchman) pieces that have to be moved each turn (e.g., the King in Triplets)? Or how about the Ruddigore Chess curse that requires a player to capture an enemy or discard a friend at each turn? (By the way, a similar curse is imposed on the players of Sudden Death Chess.) Perhaps you could also include Hesistant (or Hamlet?) pieces that require two or more turns to move (somewhat like Ralph Betza's Inchworms). Finally, how about Cuckoo pieces that can only capture friendly pieces? (Some species of cuckoo place their eggs in nests of birds of other species.)
Space Chess. Three dimensional commercial chess variant. (3x(8x8), Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Isaac wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 02:32 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★thank you for the rules for space chess. I too lost the directions to my
set years ago. My set was purchased at a game store in 1994as well, looks
extactly like the one you have placed on the web, but the box it came in
says 1981 Pacific Game Company,INC. no. 1420
I know I'm just being a pest, but maybe the default number of comments that
are on the new comments page should be rather less than 100. It loads
really fast, but if there are 100 long comments, it could take a while for
us poor benighted souls who live too far out in the boondocks to have DSL,
and don't wish to pay our cable companies triple per month. If they were
just 'Excellent, great job!' it would be OK, but when some of those wordy
people start writing, and talking about things that aren't even chess
variants, well.....
Chess History and Reminiscences. Project Gutenberg eBook version of this public domain book (large!).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 04:57 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★More than excellent, superb! Harry Bird is one of history's greatest non-GM chessplayers. His originality combined with his longevity (he played against Morphy, and he played against Lasker, maybe even against Vidmar, if I remember rightly) combined with his strength (not a world champion, but surely stronger than me) make him one of the more interesting personalities in modern chess history. I have often heard of this book, but was never fortunate enough to find a copy. Now I can read it at last. More than superb, optimal!
gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 05:08 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★Bird lost a match to Steinitz by a mrer 7 to 6. 'Bird is one of history's greatest non-GM chessplayers.' I said, but I was wrong. Steinitz was a tough cookie. Losing 7-6 makes Bird a GM in my estimation. More than superb, optimal!
gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 11:29 AM UTC:Good ★★★★The book itself is very disorganized and tough to read, with many passages that are repetitive and uninteresting. However, enough of Bird's personality shines through that I am glad to have made his acquaintance. To correct what I said earlier about the time of his career -- it was from before the first tournament up to the times of Lasker.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.