Comments by GaryK.Gifford

I am glad to hear that Michael Nelson's ZRF coding for Odin's Rune Chess
is going well. I am anxious to see the result.  Thank you Michael, for
undertaking the task. 

Michael wrote: is it legal to use the Valkyrie swap to make a null move?
That is if a Valkyrie on c6 swaps the other Valkyrie at c9 back to c6,
then you have made a move but the position on the board hasn't changed.

Michael is correct to not allow a 'null-swap.'  But also it is important
to note that the 'move/relocate' aspect does not mean the relocated piece
has to land on the start square of the Valkyrie [or King acting like a
Valkyrie]  it can be any square in that Valkrie piece's travel.  Someone
might then wonder, 'Couldn't the one Valkyrie relocate the other to a
square other than its start square?  Or the Valkyrie King relocate the
other King in the same manner?'   As for relocating the second Valkrie
[to other than the 1st Valkyries' start square] this would be the same as
if we simply moved the 1st Valkyrie to that relocate square, so it makes no
sense to do such a swap. Technically that move would be allowed; but there
is no point in it. 

Michael stated 'In most CV's the answer is 'No', so I have coded
accordingly: a Valkyrie cannot swap positions with the other Valkyrie and
a King using a Valkyrie move connot swap positions with the other King.'

Yes, that is the correct assumption.  But for other pieces note that it
need not be a position exchange.  The relocate square can be any through
wich the Valkyrie traveled, plus its start square. 

Another issue may need pointed out.  If one side cannot move, it is not a
stalemate.  The non-moving side simply losses. - gkg

I have already rated the game so am not repeating a rating here.  In regard
to the issue of two 'same-color square' Bishops I believe that should be
allowed.  The Bario intro states, '... one should be able to play this
game on a normal chessboard with the traditional set of chess pieces.' 
This still seems to allow for same-color Bishops and I think it makes the
game more interesting to allow this.  In regard to rules I would like to
see:
a) captured pieces are not defined until known by deduction
b) Bishops of the same color squares are permitted

Here is an awkward Bario likelyhood: Suppose we have a White Queen and a
White Bishop a Knight-move away from the Black King.  Now suppose Black
makes the last (or second-last) Bario move so that all pieces are known. 
Cycle #2 begins and all Barios return to undefined disk status.  It is
White's move.  Could White now use his 'former Queen Bario' or 'former
Bishop Bario' as a Knight and take the Black King?  If not, could they
become Knights and move away from the Black King?  Or, would Black's last
Bario revelation be illegal because it is like moving into Check (but only
if White creates a Knight)?
Also, assume a Queen is off the board prior to Cycle #2.  When cycle #2
hits does a 'on-the-board' Bario get to be moved as a Queen?  It seems
this would be the case... but the rules do not address this issue.  I
think we somehow need to come up with an addendum that addresses the
several unknown issues so that cv players will be playing by the same
rules.  This will certainly be needed for a zrf version and for potential
tournament play.

Tony Quintanilla suggested that I add the following from my e-mail to him
earlier this week.  It consists of rule enhancements that Carlos Carlos
and I came up with during our game which is in progress as I wite this. 

Aa acknowledegment here to CarlosCarlos for his suggestions regarding
enhancing Bario rules. 

(1) The Barios for White and Black need to be different.  I suggest White
and Blue Cresents as they are part of the piece set in use and the board
looks quite nice when they are implemented. The reason they can't be the
same (like identical color disks) is that when cycle #2 starts all
non-pawn and non-King pieces revert back to Barios.  And when a future
cycle happens Barios will nolonger be neatly placed in a player's back
row.  A white Bario on d5 could be next to a Black Bario on e5... gray
disks just won't work. So we need to see who has the 'White' Barios and
who has the 'Black Barios' when the cycles begin.

(2) There needs to be a holding zone (for captured pieces and Barios). 
This allows captured Barios to sit and await their identity to be revieled
and prevents them from re-entering the game in future Bario cycles.
CAPTURED PIECES DO NOT RETURN (EXCEPT THROUGH PAWN PROMOTION, SEE RULE 8).
 Thus, for example, if Black captured White's Queen we would see that
Queen in the holding area and when cycle 2 or 3 started an
'on-the-board' Bario could not become a White Queen. (Note: see rule 8
regarding pawn promotion). 

The Chessgi Pre-set board will work for the purpose have having capture
zones.  

(3) A captured Bario need not be identified at the time of capture.  But
can be later identified while in the holding zone.  Thus, assuming white
has only 2 Barios left and that all pieces in the capture zone are known,
and assuming that white's Barios must be a Bishop and a Knight by process
of elimination (but we don't know which will be which).  Assume that Black
now captures one of these Barios.  It goes into the zone as an
'unidentified' Bario.  The remaining White 'on-board' Bario still has
the potential to be a Knight or a Bishop.  As soon as it moves its
identity is revealed, as is the identity of the captured Bario in the
zone.

(4) Castling is as in Fischer Random Chess.

(5) You may elect to have both starting Bishops on same color squares.

(6) If one Bishop is captured, then during a new Bario Cycle start the
remaining 'on-board Bishop is allowed to become a Bishop on a different
color square.  For example.  If white had a Bishop on g1 and a rook on h1,
after these became Barios he could move the h1 Bario to g2 and identify it
as a Bishop.  In the previous cycle he had a dark squared Bishop, in this
cycle he has a light-squared Bishop.

(7) Regarding 'Bario checks while on the move' at the beginning of a
cycle:  Three logical options quickly come to mind.  I prefer option A
first, then B, I don't care for C.

Introduction to the situation: When a new cycle begins the player on the
move may have a Bario which could now be identified such that it can
capture the opponent's King.  For example, Black King at g8, White Queen
at f6; pieces revert to Barios, White plays f6-g8 (he made his f6 Bario a
Knight).  Thus, in traditional chess we would have an illegal position at
the beginning of the Bario Cycle, i.e., Black in check with White to move.
 Three reasonable options are:

[OPTION A] The player in check is checkmated because he can't move out of
check, block it, or capture the checking piece as it is not his move.  In
essence, the player on the move could capture the King.  {I like this
best}  

[OPTION B] the player on the move identifies the Bario and announces
'Check' but does not move (the Bario check counts as the move in this
case); the player in check is now allowed to move out of Check or capture
or block the offending Bario. (Seems like a good alternative to rule A)

[OPTION C] The position is declared illegal (as if the one player moved
into check) and the player in check must make another move.  But what if
that was the only move that he could make? Stalemate? Option C seems to be
the most problematic of the 3. It could require a positional take-back.  (I
Don't care for rule C).

(8) Pawn promotion:  The Bario page states the use of only 1 chess set and
furthermore states you can only have one Queen, 2 rooks, etc.  But what
about pawn promotion?  I suggest that a pawn can promote to any friendly
captured piece (as in Freeling's Grand Chess.) Promotion could even be to
a Bario (in its unidentified state) if you had a Bario(unidentified) in the
Zone. 

**** A note in closing ****

I think these rule enhancements will enable players to enjoy Bario with
minimal confusion.  Until a time when rule 7 is standard (as to A, B, or
C), players should agree on one of the options at the start of the game. 
I strongly prefer option A.

Best regards to all.  Gary K. Gifford

This is in regard to 2 other comments. (1) 2005-04-03 Mark Thompson had the
impression that '... when a player defines his last piece, all of THAT
PLAYER's pieces go back to being undefined' but also pointed out that
the rules don't actually state to limit it to the player's own pieces. 
CarlosCarlos and I had discussed this matter and came to agreement [at
least for for our game] that when the last Bario was known all pieces
would then revert to Bario.  This prevents a Bario reset from taking place
on every turn when a player is down to just two Barios (or 1 undefined on
board and 1 undefined in the holding zone).  In our way of playing when a
player is down to his last Bario it will be known and will therefore
remain seen as its last designated piece asignment... even if the other
player must reset his or her Barios.
(2) 2005-04-04 Larry Smith stated, 'I like the idea that ALL the quantum
on the field must be defined before the cycle starts again, and ALL fall
back into the un-defined state when the last one is actually
moved(defined).'   The rule Carlos Carlos and I are using does not
require that last Bario to move, only that it 'be defined.'  Thus, in
our game I currently have 2 Barios undefined.  If I move 1 the other is
known and CarlosCarlos can then define one of his remaining 2 Barios and
the new cycle will start (with all Barios being reset.  I do not want that
to happen so I am refraining from moving either Bario as moving 1 will
define both.  Larry Smith's rule idea would allow me to move one and
still avoid a new cycle, even though the remaining Bario would now be
known ( 'defined by deduction' in this case).

I slightly disagree with Larry Smith's comment which is: Quote: 'An
un-moved quantum would merely be a potential and not an actual.  It
would need to be moved to be realized.  In other words, it must be
'observed' to be that particular piece, not just surmised.'-End Quote.
I look at it this way, for example: If a remaining Bario can only be a
Rook.  Then it is a Rook.  When it moves, it will move as a Rook.  But,
for the sake of Bario one could make the rule read that 'The last Bario
must be moved and transformed into the intended piece, even if that piece
is already known.'  That would be a clear rule.  But they way the rules
are currently written, pieces need only to have their identity correctly
'defined.'  Thus, by simple logic we can correctly define a Bario when 2
exist, and 1 moves.  Is it any different than dropping a coin on a table
and being asked to define the 'face-up' and the 'face-down'?  If I see
Heads face up, I can define Tails as face down (also, I can point out this
is no trick coin.  In Bario we are using a standard chess set, so we know
the possibilities).  With the coin toss, as with 2 remaining Barios, there
is no need for me to see the final hidden item.  Labeling that hidden item
as as a 'quantum with potential' does not alter the simple reality of
the situation.

On a second note, Larry asks, 'If all quantum are neutral, would a player
be allowed to capture them?'  He then states, 'I would opt for this.'  I
agree with Larry 100% here. But in using his arguement from above, should
one really be allowed to capture a mere 'quantum potential?'

Larry Smith asked 'What happens if the quantum has been reduced to a
single piece and the player has only a single potential?' Answer: In the
Deductive variation we know what the final piece is (or more correctly,
what it would be if it were to move) unless an undefined Bario is in the
capture Zone. In the first case, for full-reset, if the opponent still has
Barios in play then the first player could even reveal his last Bario.  It
would be irrelevant and play would continue until reset time... which
would be determined by the opponent in this case.  In case 2, the Bario is
still unknown (as we don't know what the capture zone Bario is, or the one
on the board).  In the 'Deductive, Full-Reset' game that is now in
progress, the single Bario scenario is a non-issue in either case.  If the
identity is known, and it is the last Bario to be known, then the new cycle
starts.  

Note: In deductive variants of Bario, when a player only has one known
Bario (or 2 of the same, like two rooks in Bario guise)when a new cycle
starts he should just use the actual pieces and not the Bario piece image.

Of course I am not laying claim to Bario... though if I am seen as a
'Quantom' one might see that as a possibility.  As to wanting people to
play by the rules I am using... nonsense.  Reading my previous comments
will show that this is not the case.  In fact, the other day I commented,
and I quote, 'Perhaps there should be 2 variations of Bario? (1)
Bario,Logical Deduction Variant and (2) Bario, Quantom Variant {of course,
the names could be changed). The course of time would tell us whether one
was desireable over the other, or inform us perhaps, that each was equally
enjoyable. Regardless of which variant (or both) surface, one thing is
certainly true. The rules themselves are of a Bario language. Full of
potential, but remaining undefined, or atleast defined with definitions
not agreed upon by all.'

I also commented, 'So, what will the final established rules be? Mr.
Smith, I salute your logic. I think we are seeing the same things in
Bario, just disagreeing on how our observations should be used to develop
a set of standard rules.'

To me, none of this sounds like I am trying to claim Bario.  Or to force
others to play by rules CarlosCarlos and I are using.  Apparently my
salute to logic was pre-mature.

In the penswift/CarlosCarlos game a 'full-field reset' has taken place. 
We are using Player-defined Barios.  If we were using nuetral Barios, such
that they were up for grabs by the player on the move, then I would have
had to avoid the reset as my King would be under heavy Bario attack.  This
is not a criticism of the nuetral Bario concept... it is only a note that
may help Mr. Smith in figuring out his rules for nuetral Bario use.  At
this point in time I remain in favour of Barios that belong to the
players.

However, in regard to Mr. Smith's desire to create a very complicated
game, I would suggest the idea of getting together with David Short, the
creater of Existentialist Chess and creating a Bario version of that game
(if David Short was open to the idea.)  If Mr. Smith (like the creator of
Bario) is hoping for the creation of a complex game, then I think that a
Bario Existentialist Chess (or a Existentialist Bario Chess) would be hard
to top for complexity.  But, again, if that were to be attempted I think
that David Short should be contacted.  I believe that Existentialist Bario
Chess would be a most complex game, much more so than we are likely to get
from Bario which begins with a standard chess set, and is really a variant
of Fischer Random Chess with hidden pieces and resettable pieces.  Of
course, those factors do make for a tremendous difference in the 2 games.