Comments by joejoyce

John, thank you for the reference. I've been using multiple sets with
colored twist-ties, or sets of slightly-varying sizes (and often
slightly-varying colors) with the 'big' rooks and bishops representing
chancellors and cardinals, and such. Now, if I had only taken shop...

Thank you for your comments and references, David. This elephant does not
show up in the CV piecelopedia, but does in piece descriptions within the
rules of both games you mention. How many others, who knows, but it seems
to be a logical 'new' piece. This does demonstrate how difficult it is
to come up with something truly new in the way of pieces. Hasn't stopped
anyone from trying yet, including me.
A comprehensive set of rules for shatranj variants is, based on just these
variants posted in 2005, very possibly doomed. Boards, pieces, setups and
even setup strategy all have expanded considerably. A shatranj
piecelopedia and a book on shatranj variants might be the best we could
hope for.

Hello, David. I would be happy to swap games with you. I'd love to try an
8x10 shatranj game. It will probably take me a few days to get a skeleton
GC preset together, non-rules-enforcing so we have the choice of specific
pieces*. Never played Makruk, or any of your variants, so whatever you
want is fine with me. Ten moves a week is at the upper limit of my
practical ability, but five per is a good number. Looking forward to it.
Sufficient mating force: the pieces I'm inclined to use in our game of
'great shatranj' (an awkward name for an 8x10 size) are the 1-step
slide, 2-step jump pieces, like the Modern (Shatranj) Elephant. The
dabbabah-wazir ('dababba') steps one or jumps two orthogonally. Clearly,
the 2-step dababba-rider Gary Gifford and I are using in the Grand Shatranj
test game can, with the king, checkmate a bare king, having a move of 1, 2,
3, or 4 squares. But the Modern Dababba moves only 1 or 2 squares. Can king
and dababba checkmate lone king? 
*great rationalization for my being unable to do anything more than gut a
pre-existing preset.

carlos carlos, where are you? You own me a move in the tournament, and
you're running out of time. Our game of Switching Chess is in week 2, and
you haven't made a move yet. I'd like a win, but shouldn't get it by
default.
If anyone has Carlos' address, please email him or send me the address -
thanks. Joe Joyce

This looks like a very interesting game. It should be much faster playing
than shatranj, given the coupling of a great increase in the number of
long-range pieces with the forward setup. Could get some fierce shoot-outs
with this setup. Some basic numbers:
                    Shatranj    FIDE     Mir
# non-royal pieces    7          7        9
# short-range         5          2        4
# long-range          2          5        5
So, while shatranj and Fide are opposites, Mir matches FIDE for long-range
pieces and all 4 short-range Mir pieces are jumpers. But, while the rooks
cancel out, the cannons and superbishop don't quite seem the equal of
bishops and queen. They're certainly not quite as easy to use. Still, all
other things being equal, I wouldn't want FIDE in a FIDE-Mir 'Chess with
Unequal Armies' game.  
I would love a copy of the zrf when it's done.

I've been a member of this site (and online) a little over a year. I have
never seen the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants nor had any dealings with
Mr. Pritchard. However, in the brief time I've been here, I've seen his
name cited over and over again, as authoritative. I believe David Howe is
right. Whether or not this site ever generally recognizes people in
addition to games, I think Mr. Pritchard more than deserves the
recognition and thanks of people who love what chess can be. Surely it is
the rare person like David Pritchard who has helped create the conditions
and situations that all the rest of us enjoy. I feel this site would be
remiss in not finding a way to memorialize him. My sincere condolences to
his family and friends. 
M J Joyce III

What are the minimum computer skills needed?

What happens when a game you've won, and it says 'You have won' in the
game log, doesn't show up in the calculations, even though you can call
it up by name from the game logs with your password, and it shows as a win
when you list all your games? The game in question is
Omega Chess oncljan-joejoyce-2005-96-245
Admittedly, it's not a good win, but it balances out one of the
almost-won games where my opponent disappeared just before the end. (I see
the value of timed games now.) Actually, I hadn't brought it up before
because it is such a poor win that I didn't feel I deserve it, but I
realized that if it was included, I just might get up to 1500 briefly,
before I lose to Carlos, David, Gary..., and that'd be a kick for someone
who's only been playing a year or so after, depending on how you wish to
count time off, 30-40 years.  
I will say the ratings have brought out everyone's competitive spirits.
As for me, I'll happily carry a general rating that takes in all my
games: playtests, coffee-house, and tournament; but, since people are
asking for so many things, I'd like to add one more. Would it be possible
or practical to allow people to choose one or more subsets of games for a
specific rating. For example, I am currently playing several variants of
shatranj now, one of which is 'grand shatranj'. Could I be allowed to
put any number of game names into a 'Rate these games only' field, so I
could get a combined rating for say 6 shatranj variants plus Grand Chess?
And then another for the 'big board' games, and so on?

Yes, it does, and on poor Roberto's page, too. So I traveled this comment
to a new spot.

I feel I have to weigh in on the subject of re-using grand,
well-established names for new variants, as I am soon to post presets for
my 'Two Large Shatranj Variants', respectively Great and Grand Shatranj.
I agree in general with the opinions expressed by Fergus Duniho and Gary
Gifford on Grand Chess 2, but there are circumstances where this general
prohibition of re-using a name should not hold. Specifically, I wrote to
Christian Freeling to ask his permission to call one variant 'Grand
Shatranj', and before I posted 2Large I sent him a copy to vet. Had he in
any way objected to me about the name or the game, I would have changed it;
and should he have any objections now or in the future, I will change it.
Should it be felt necessary, I can produce the emails. In my posting of
2Large, I make clear exactly what my debt to Mr. Freeling and Grand Chess
is. Under these circumstances, I feel my use of the name and setup for
Grand Shatranj is acceptable, even if I am over-reaching. Now, back to
having fun.

Once again, I'll put my foot in my mouth up to my shoulder.
David, I think I see what you're doing. Here I am. This name is a little
tacky. But, reading the rules, I see Mr. Scanlon is paying homage to Grand
Chess in his own way. 
Gary and I have agreed, in an exchange of private emails, that people
might take me too seriously. I mention this partly for completeness, but
mostly because I wish to copy 1 sentence from my email to Gary for
Christine - 'As far as Christine, without talking to her, I'd bet she
has no such animal as a GS game to come out, it's most likely her sense
of humor coming out.' Hah! Got you on the first try! :)
Roberto, you have the best line about the rules of this game. Thank you.
Terms like maximum logical consistancy always worry me. I'm glad others
are bothered, too.
To finish seriously, there may be no legal problem with names like More
Granderer Chess II, I'm not up on copyright law. But as a community, this
group can exert social pressure, fairly or unfairly. What are the community
standards, and what is fair?

Sam, I believe you have crossed the Rubicon into wargame design with your
game proposal in CoT. You have all pieces moving each turn (in what
order?) and ranged combat with odds for success, a hex board and terrain;
all you need is to call it a wargame, and maybe add a combat results table
for all 'combats' between 2 opposing pieces, not just the ranged ones. I
would recommend to anyone HG Wells 'Little Wars' for a fascinating look
at wargaming from some of the history and how to of wargaming to pictures
of an influential author on hands and knees in miniature battle scenes.
It's not quite chess. I see a line between chess variants and wargames
that is crossed several times in Crossing the Rubicon.