Comments by GregoryStrong

Tony Quintanilla:

Yes, I am totally in favor of this.  In my games I try to use kibbitz
comments explaining the situation for the benefit of anyone who may
watching.  But it might be good to take a game of high-interest, like
Alice or Anti-King II, and find two players who are interest in
participating, and have a kabbitz free-for-all.  If interested parties
follow the game and make insightful comments, then the result would be an
truely expert-level game worthy of study.

Any other iterest?

Hmmmm... I'm not sure what to make of any of this, but my first reaction
is to dis-believe every word of it.  You claim it's older than the modern
(corrupted) form of 'common' chess, as you call it.  Funny how
Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (the CV bible) doesn't even
mention it.  Even if the rules are super-secret, as you claim, surely the
existance of such a game would be known to Pritchard.  But, rather, you
claim that orthodox Chess is actually decended from some super-secret game
pioneered by the English monarchy, when it's pretty clear that Chess
derived from Chaturanga from India.  You say that one of the reasons why
Stanley Random Chess has not gained any recognition is because (and I
quote):

the Simplified SR (Common) Chess community has long resisted the notion
that SR Chess is a predecessor that predates the more common and corrupted
form of the game.

Yup.  No disagreement there; I dispute the notion.

I could surely do Switching Chess; I think I've got a decent handle on
that game.  And I'm willing to try more than one game.  I'm not sure
that my experience with Switching Chess means I'm ready for Rococo,
though.  But, since Tony said he's willing to play Rococo, how about Tony
and George play Rococo (original version), and I play Switching Chess with
either Tony or George, or both.

However, please note, that I do consider a pawn in Switching Chess to be
worth somewhat more than 1.0, and would be weighing moves under that
hypothesis.  Switching makes pawns more mobile, and able to get to the
eigth rank in circumstances where they would otherwise not be able to. 
And, since pawn promotion is usually decisive in the endgame, I would
seriously consider trading a Knight for two pawns, if I felt that it gave
me some tempo.

No, a Knight can jump over pieces of either color.

Whether or not any of the historical stuff is real or not, it seems that
this is not intended to be a joke.  I recieved an e-mail from SR Chess GM
Gregory Topov, saying I should seriously consider the historical
authenticity of SR Chess, and directing me to the same links Peter Aronsen
described as 'a humorous series of articles.'  It may or may not be
funny, but it seems it's not intended to be.

It involves economic sanctions.  At the time, we had sanctions against
Yugoslavia, and any participation in any sporting events held there would
be a violation of those sanctions.  The idea being that the event would
draw tourists/money into Yugoslavia - exactly what the sanctions are
supposed to prevent.  And, as a US citizen, violation of US sanctions is a
criminal act.

It seems to me that this game has far too much power for this board.  The
more power you add, the more tactical the game becomes, and the less
strategic.  Some may like this, but by-in-large, I think people generally
try to maximize the strategic aspect of a game.

One quick example - Since all your bishops are arch-bishops, they can
change color.  One common strategic element to Chess is considering which
color your pieces are on, based on which color Bishop the opponent has. 
That element of the game is now gone.

I am confused about pawn promotion.  It says 'A pawn may only promote on
b8 to a knight, and only if a player has already lost a knight' ... What
if the player has lost no Knight?  can the pawn still more there?  If so,
what happens if a Knight is captured later?

Thanks!

Oh yes, this is a great addition for so many reasons...  Thanks!  I'm
especially pleased that pieces can now be represented by the correct
letters for the game, without requiring a proliferation of piece sets. 
The ability to use the plus-sign in the name for shogi pieces is a very
nice touch, too.

I would like to suggest something, though.  Right now, when moving a piece
you can either enter the piece type ('P e2-e4') or not ('e2-e4').  I
always do the former, because it makes it easier for me to keep track of
games.  Some opponenets do, some do not.  I would be nice if, when
entering a simple single-move, like 'e2-e4', it would automatically add
the 'P' or 'p'.  

Thanks for the consideration.  You have done a lot of good work on
improving the Game code recently!  I need to get to work on presets using
the new features for wildebeest chess, lions & unicorns chess, and others.

Does anyone happen to know what year this game was invented?  Amazingly
enough, there is no mention of FRC in Pritchard's encyclopedia.  I would
like to supply such basic information as year of invention for all games
supported by ChessV, so any information would be helpful!

Thanks,
Greg