Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I would like like to ask, please, if we could move this discussion somewhere else? It is interesting, but we have gotten quite a ways away from the rules of Salmon P. Chess. <p> That asked, I can say for the record that only one of the raters so far is known to me personally: my stepfather, Darrel. He is not easily moved to transports of enthusiasm and I was pleasantly surprised to hear from him here—wouldn't have known it was him, in fact, if he hadn't told me later. This is hardly a case of stuffing the ballot box. <p> At least, not on my part. If there is in fact an organization of enthusiastic board-game/bent-humor/dead-presidents groupies out there tirelessly acting to promote this thing, I am just a little miffed that I haven't gotten any sort of personal e-mail from them. Hey girls! Let me tell you about Go ... ver Cleveland! <p> The suggestion that all of those good ratings were me, acting under an alias, is just silly. We can dispense with that in one word: 'Logorrhea'. I have it; they don't. Issue settled. Try to imagine the writer behind SPC, in the grip of an ego frenzy so wild and raw that he would stoop to techno-cheating at a contest expressly <i>for</i> 'fun and honor'—imagine him, I say, praising himself in a few one- or two-line general remarks. If you can imagine that, you can do something I cannot. <p> I do not, however, expect to convince anyone of my honesty merely by adding words to the pile. Since it seemed to be in question, I just wanted to add my bit. There is something I <i>can</i> do with words, though: I can apologize. <p> To all the people who stopped by this site, and saw my little game, and got a laugh out of it or raised an eyebrow or thought it was kind of cool to stretch an idea that far; and especially all of you who took a minute out of your day to say so, to give the thing a rating or weigh in with a remark about what you liked: thank you very, very much ... I'm glad you liked what you saw. And I'm sorry. <p> <i>I</i> know that you really exist, and <i>I</i> know that I didn't bully or beg you into voting, and <i>I</i> know that it's not very nice to hear that Steps Will Be Taken to prevent you from troubling the chess gods with your pathetic little opinions ever again. But none of these other people really know that, see. To them, your voice could be just the crazed imagination of a lonely, bored kid—so they talk about you like you're not even there and go on about how serious a problem you are and what would be the kindest way of fixing you. And that can really, really hurt when it's the price of a few minutes' honest enjoyment and innocent enthusiasm. I apologize. You're getting handled like a syphilitic old aunt in the attic just for liking my words and saying so. But you and me are the only ones who know that you're not me. What can I say? I'm very sorry for the way you've been treated here.

So, can it be said that we allowed ourselves to get in an uproar over something Derek Nalls said? We should know better.

I second Dale's sentiments. It's very unfortunate that the integrity of the author was questioned by what was originally a single, unwarranted insinuation. This one insinuation unfortunately resulted in a discussion about verified versus unverified ratings, giving some perhaps intended, perhaps unintended credence to the original insinuation. I have seen very few positive or negative comments made on this site under false pretenses. I would suggest that we drop this discussion of ratings on this page, as Dale asks.

My nephew asked me to look at this game. All I can say is: chess has certainly come a long way! What will these kids think of next.

Amy, it's not just kids here! Many of us are firmly middle-aged. (Is 'firmly middle-aged' an oxymoron?)

good,,but a bit confusing

One word. Radical.

I want to play this game. I seriously want to build and play this with a bunch of friends. I also have some ideas to make the board a little more compact, though it still won't be the sort of game one could pack up and play in a hotel room somewhere. If anyone wants to try and play this, leave a comment and we can try to get in contact. I'll keep checking this, even though the last comment was added nearly 5 years ago. Seriously. If you're as crazy as I am, I want to hear from you.

Constructing and playing a physical game of Salmon P. Chess is indeed possible, but would probably kill a lot of time, money, and sanity. Nevertheless, it sounds like the kind of thing I would do over a slow and uneventful summer. ('Hey, look at this mind-bogglingly huge chess variant! I think I'll go build a set so I'll actually have something to do for the next few months.')

Alternatively, I can spend my summer coding this game, although I have no idea how one would store the board information. I'll have to analyze this game a bit more...it seems pretty interesting.

Absurdly extravagant is the phrase that comes to mind!

Nothing else quite like this on the website; a true push-the-theoretical-envelope, but still playable, variant. It's amusingly written, too. Great job!

can you show me the movement (at least the notation (in betza))

WHAT ARE THE MOVEMENT OF THOSE PIECES?!

This page describes the movements.  They cannot be described in Betza because of the unusual board geometry.  If you had read this page, and seen the images, it should be clear to you that this game is not actually playable - by design.  It is purely an outrageous, humorous artistic expression.