[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Ratings & Comments
Chessgi. Drop the pieces you take from your opponent. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Chad wrote on Tue, Apr 2, 2002 08:33 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★You can play this game at <a href='http://www.goldtoken.com'>GoldToken.com</a>.
General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David, Peter, great idea! This makes it easy to comment, is practical,
timely, and should have a wide audience.
It seems to me that <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> actually seems playable! But I
would suggest that the first three turns be declared a Bank Holiday with
no capturing required.
David, will this page be linked to the side bar somehow? That would help in
the future when it is not longer the new item in the Feedback page.
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]Very nice game. It is highly playable. Very enjoyable. The double teams interact in a cooperative way. The board is interesting to play on, especially with the center squares which change your piece types. Although the game harkens back to Chaturanga, even the 4-player version of Chaturanga, and other 4-player games, there is a lot on ingenuity here. The idea of changing piece type in the center adds some of the ancient flavor too. The double team environment in-itself adds a new element in many ways. The rules are simple to grasp. Traditional chess moves are used, along with the ancient moves in the center. The center, of course, alludes to the traditional struggle in chess to capture the center. The game is very nice. By that I mean that it is graceful and evocative. Nice game. Try it!
General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 05:30 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★If you think Ruddigore Chess seems playable, by all means test a bit more and write it up! You're the inventor. I just blathered away with a crude sketch of the rules and a crazy suggestion, you saw the possibilities and found the specific rule-set that makes it work -- in other words, you do all the hard work, it's your game. <P> You'll mention me, of course, but you know I would never have pursued the idea further...
Grid Chess. Always move to a different 2 by 2 square part of the board. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 05:47 AM UTC:Pinwheel Chess was invented early 1970s by me, in NOST/Algia.
Orbital Rotating Grid Chess is like Pinwheel Chess except that e4,e5,d4,d5 is one cell, (so far just as in Offset Grid Chess, but...) and the other squares in c4-f6 are another cell, and the remaining squares in b2-g7 another, and the remaining squares in a1-h8 (in other words, the 28 edge squares) are another cell. And they rotate in opposite directions. Chaos!
Knight's Tour Rotating Grid Chess, not the right name, but you take a Knight's tour, and each turn the pieces on a1 move to b3 and the pieces on c2 get transferred to a1, and so forth
And finally, Brownian Motion Chess, where the squares are randomly inserted into a linked list, unknown to the players, and each turn everything moves forward on the list one step.
All that was from just one of my densely-typed two page articles in N/A in early 1970s.
Critique: Pinwheel could be played postal, which was the only mode back then, but you'd be crazy to try. Both pinwheel and Orbital should be playable (and even fun!) in a noncompetitive online situation.
The idea is, it's grid chess, but each grid rotates 1/4 turn after each move; and alternate grids rotate backwards -- e.g. a1 goes to a2, and c2 goes to c1.
I wrote the program that displays the board and lets 2 people play, more than once, in different languages. Long lost, of course, even if you could find compilers/interpreters for those languages.
Orbital Rotating Grid Chess is like Pinwheel Chess except that e4,e5,d4,d5 is one cell, (so far just as in Offset Grid Chess, but...) and the other squares in c4-f6 are another cell, and the remaining squares in b2-g7 another, and the remaining squares in a1-h8 (in other words, the 28 edge squares) are another cell. And they rotate in opposite directions. Chaos!
Knight's Tour Rotating Grid Chess, not the right name, but you take a Knight's tour, and each turn the pieces on a1 move to b3 and the pieces on c2 get transferred to a1, and so forth
And finally, Brownian Motion Chess, where the squares are randomly inserted into a linked list, unknown to the players, and each turn everything moves forward on the list one step.
All that was from just one of my densely-typed two page articles in N/A in early 1970s.
I have all the back issues, and some other stuff, packed in a box to send them away, but I never get around to doing it. So nag me.
Critique: Pinwheel could be played postal, which was the only mode back then, but you'd be crazy to try. Both pinwheel and Orbital should be playable (and even fun!) in a noncompetitive online situation.
Knight's Tour is just an over-the-top thingy all us CV designers like to do, and Brownian Motion is over-the-over-the-topmost.
--
gnohmon
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 05:53 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★I have no idea whether or not it's really playable, but judging purely by the text, the number of ingredients in the recipes, and the quality and amount of spices, I would have to guess that this is a very fine piece of work. Applause.
General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'll add <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> to my 'to do' list, but since that's already 1.83 miles long, don't expect it this quarter. But I will almost
certainly write a Zillions Rules File for it, and bully poor Tony Quintanilla into playing it with me by e-mail so I can see if it works or not before publishing. Someday.
<p>
(I realize I don't <em>need</em> Zillions to play the game by e-mail, but it makes it more convenient and enforces rules that might get missed. Also, I find programming a game a good way to examine a game's rules in details.)
So, given the amount of chatter about Chatter Chess and Ruddigore Chess and so on, do we need 'virtual' comment pages so we can discuss variants that haven't actually been posted? Then, going forward, the comments will be where they belong. I mean, who's going to think about looking for comments about Ruddigore Chess attached to the Archoniclastic Chess page? Also, to David, I like the little subtle link to the recent comments at the top of the What's New page, but I don't think in GMT. Maybe we could include the current time in GMT, or the time elapsed since the last comment, or something like that.
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]willem wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 07:07 AM UTC:Good ★★★★ 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]Peter, I've recently been playing Grand Camelot in another venue. Grand Camelot is a four-player version of Parker Brothers Camelot game. (To the peanut gallery: Yes, I know it's not a chess variant; let me finish.) Grand Camelot has two unusual features for a four-player game: 1 - Partners sit side by side. Translating to this game, Red and Green would be partners against Yellow and Black. 2 - The turn sequence is a 'figure-8'. Translated to Chaturanga 4-84, that would be Red - Yellow - Green - Black (repeat) This small change works surprisingly well, and I've wondered if it would be as successful in a 4-player CV like this. I generally find 4-player abstract strategy board games annoying, but Grand Camelot is lots of fun and very exciting. Also, the comment about the ZRF being double-dummy brought an idea to mind. Has there been a CV (e.g. Bridge Chess or Whist Chess) where the players bid to achieve a certain outcome? The partner of the 'declarer' sits out, and the defenders play without communication. This might be a possible thing to design. One could even play a Feeback version with ones physician, attorney, and accountant.
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!!
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.