[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GaryK.Gifford
Game Courier Tournament #2. Sign up for our 2nd multi-variant tournament to be played all on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I take it that in Switching Chess, a King in Check will still be allowed to switch, as not allowing this would be one of the suggested variants.
In regard to Switching Chess, Andreas Kaufmann and I have agreed to use Tony's original rules which allow for a King to switch (swap) when in check.
Storm the Ivory Tower. A Smess adaptation of Chinese Chess. (9x10, Cells: 90) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would like to see an additional board and piece set option for for this game. One that had a much less colorful board and used subtle direction indicators instead of bold colorful arrow displays. Otherwise, though it is a logical and challenging game, it looks too much as though it is for children. And pieces: I would have trouble getting into the comic, big-eyed pieces, whereas Chinese or Alfaerie-Stanton Style pieces would seem more fitting to an engineer, scientist, lawyer, etc. A similiar situation exists with the related game 'All the Kings Men.' I own a board and set (plastic pieces), which is the 'adult' or 'grown-up' version. But I saw photos of a children's version. For me, personally, I like the adult set, but would not want to play on the child's set. Of course, this is all visual perception, and visual preference. But picture Kasparov and Topalov, for example, playing a serious chess match on a Scooby Scooby Doo set or a Simpsons set. It would be the same game, but ... somehow not quite right.
As Fergus has pointed out, Sam Trenholme's black and white version consists of arrow outlines... with the squares not defined by borders or colors. But I think if these were added to basic color squares (as used in most chess setups) we would have a board similar to that of the 'All the King's Men' game, which has imitation wood and noticeable, yet much more subtle arrows. Note that I was likely spoiled by the physical board I own and the 3D plastic medeival-type pieces that came with it. Perhaps, most important here, is the fact that [other than myself and a co-worker] I know of no one else who minds the bright colors and the current piece set with eyes. So, as the Star Trek Spock once said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few.' So there is certainly no need to create a second board and piece set on my account, that would be a waste of time and space. But I do thank Mr. Trenholme for taking the time to create and present his black and white bitmap.
Thanks for displaying Michael's board, it is much easier for my brain to quickly see what's going on directionally. But I am wondering if a checkered version would be a further improvement? [The colors used on the Switching Chess pre-set, I think, would be very good] I think it would reduce the optical illusion factor (which if I stare at the board a while I do see). Anyway, given the choice of the two boards I greatly prefer this one. But what pieces would go on it? Chinese ? Thanks again to both Michael and Fergus for putting the effort into getting an optional, more traditional board and set. P.S. One reason I don't like the current set and board can be realized if you picture a book of chess problems. Now, imagine a similar book with STIT problems using the current board and pieces. I solve chess problems in my head every night, many quite fast... but the nature of the STIT board and pieces would require that I analyze the STIT diagram a long time just to understand what is where. Plus those little eyes and comic images, well I have trouble taking them seriously.
Outstanding! Great job Fergus! Now this board, a coloration of Michael's submission is a true work of art, fit for framing. Thank you very much Fergus for creating this version. And thank you Michael for designing the original. When it has complimentary pieces to go with it I'm fired up to play!
Excellent again! Michael's tan board is very good. Much like my physical board for 'All the King's Men.' Very easy on the eyes. Fergus's Chinese pieces look good on this board. I am curious as to what Michael's pieces look like and will ask for a copy via e-mail, unless there are plans to display that scenario here. I greatly appreciate the time and effort Michael and Fergus have put into this project. In regard to the 'New Coke' hype idea... I can say, 'Nonsense.' We are talking about game design here. Two very different boards and very different piece sets as an attempt to please players with different tastes. The fact that this gives a great new game publicity is an added benefit. Anyone not liking the STIT comments, of course, can skip them. But I think they have lead (or are leading to) to a very worthwhile conclusion. I look forward to seeing the game logs for STIT. Best regards to all. And thanks again... very much.
Politically Correct Chess. Missing description (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]L.L. Smith (inventor of this game) and I had discussued it via e-mail briefly during its ZRF creation process. I was permitted to play-test it, upon which I generally became confused and lost. I enjoyed reading the rules as they are similar to what could be expected to be found in a Mad Magazine or National Lampoon. I was about to create a piece clarification table for myself (as I've done with Joe Joyce's Grand Shatranj Test) so I could look at the piece image for move reference; but before doing so I found an opening line to draw the ZRF in PCC. I have offered my comments to Larry via e-mail, and from his return e-mails I know he wonders what others think of his highly original game. So if you have time to look it over, I am sure that Larry would greaty appreciate your comments. P.S. I still like his original Sigmun Freud Therapist piece more than the round head with glasses piece, but as Larry pointed out to me, the former would be politically incorrect. In regard to getting confused and losing a game, you may wonder how that is possible. The following partial extract from the actual rules may clarify my brain's dilema, to a small degree: 'A player who has not any non-retired Average Individuals on the field at any time has deferred their victory of the game.' I look forward to other comments and to potential reponses from the game inventor. Best regards to all.
Shatranj of Troy. A Shatranj variant with Shogi-like drops, a Trojan Horse (with 6 pieces inside),. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I greatly appreciate Joe Joyce's recent comments, But I would like to expand upon them: JJ-Point A: 'It is probably extremely sensitive to beginning play' GG-I think Chess is much less forgiving and much more sensitive. With SOT you can create your own setup; and unless you make a real blunder, you can likely play just about any opening and make it into the middle-game... to about the same degree that you can in Shogi. JJ-Point B: '...certainly you can win or lose quickly in this game.' GG: While one can plant the seeds of defeat, this game is much safer for the second player (black) than many other games, including Chess. White's initiative here is essentially non-existent. Shogi is similar, in that respect. However, I do suspect that a much stronger player will defeat a much weaker player without too much difficulty, but this seems to be the case with most games involving logical deployment of pieces. JJ-Point C: 'Several layers of play with all their complex choices are built from a few simple ideas in an easy-to-understand game. You've made a maddeningly complex easy-to-understand game.' GG: The Opening phase is simple: Move a Trojan Horse around and drop off pieces to create your intitial setup. If desired, keep a piece or two in the Horse for an attack. Other than that, it is very much like Shogi with Shatranj pieces (and a few closely related orthoganal counter-parts.) Is it 'Maddeningly Complex?' I don't think so. I think it is at the level of Shogi with much more opening variety. But players of Chess and or Shogi should be able to jump right in with no headaches. JJ-Point D: 'Nice job.' GG: Thanks. JJ and I played a test game of this and it played quite well. There is lots of room for experimentation as to what opening lines are best. Should anyone review the 'test game' please note that I think JJ threw in the towel too quick. In games inwhich you can drop pieces it is usually good to play on until the inevitable. For example, I was once getting crushed in a face-to-face Shogi game. Resignation looked logical. But I mated the guy with a Knight and a Gold-General drop... (of course, that is much more likely in over-the-board play, or in real-time internet play... without days of delay).
As a collector of Chess Sets I can not actually identify a favorite. My
Isle of Lewis set, for example, is replica of a very old set which is a
true work of art and the original which was likely used in Norse games. I
acquired another set, very thin and ornate, from nuns who returned with it
from India. Italy's 1945 era red and white Florentine sets are amazing
as they are molded hard plastic with high detail and no mold-lines evident
(I did not know they could do that back in the 40's). There are 2
versions of that set. My plastic Harry Potter set {which is not of Harry
Potter characters} is a miniture of the large self-moving chess set that
was used in the movie. Very nice piece images there. Knights swinging
morning stars while riding Horses, the Queen wearing a full-suit of armor,
etc. There is an Aztec-Cortez set, Mexican onyx, Chinese warriors, good
angels vs. bad angels, etc. I have many more and like them all (as works
of art, that is). To play over the board nothing has ever surpased the
classic Stauton Set, which, by the way, is required in official
tournaments. Hexagonal Hole Chess. Hexagonal variant using new pieces, holes, and barriers. (Cells: 91) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]unintentional redundant comment - removed by author
I just made a pre-set for Hexagonal Hole Chess. While doing so I noticed that the red-side (in the rules) is missing 2 pawns... that has been corrected in the pre-set. I used a Glinski board and Alfaerie graphics 'the Antoine Fourrière Set,' where blocks are blocks but holes are represented by crabs (as I saw no better substitute- perhaps one can think of large crabs residing at the bottom of the holes?); Engineers as Windmills and Teleporters as the Star piece. I've not looked at this game since it was originally posted. Looking at it now it does look like a real pain to play... not that it would be hard to play, just that there is a lot to consider prior to making a move. Anyway, the non move enforcing pre-set link is below. http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DHexagonal+Hole+Chess%26settings%3DHexagonalHoleChess
Hi Michael: If you haven't already done so you should use the self-conributing page system to submit Josh's game. Then it can have its own game page with diagrams, etc. And Josh can show it to his friends. Best of luck to you and Josh with his game... and Happy New Year.
Just a note that game-specific tournaments are often held on other sites.
But there is no reason they can't be held here, in fact CV has many games
that cannot be played on these other sites. I just completed a Loop Chess
(Chessgi) event in a 4 person round-robin at BrainKing. A while before
that I was in a larger Gothic Chess round-robin. In a Round Robin,
everyone plays everyone.
With large numbers of people (should that happen) a Swiss System can be
used. After Round 1 people with 1 point play against others with 1 point,
while the 0-point players play other 0-point players [when possible].... in
Round 3, 2-point players play other 2-point players, etc. No one is
eliminated. If 100 people play we'd see (assuming no draws) the
following occurances of maximum points:
End of Round 1 - 50 people with 1 point
End of Round 2 - 25 people with 2 points
End of Round 3 - 12 people with 3 points
End of Round 4 - 6 people with 4
End of Round 5 - 3 people with 5 points
End of Round 6 - 2 people with 6 points (1 person had to get a bye)
End of Round 7 - 1 person with 7 points
The point ot this illustration is that only 7 rounds were needed to
reduced 100 players down to one winner.
Other tournament systems consist of several elimination Rounds. For
example: Round 1 might have 4 different Round-Robin groups going on (like
4 groups of 5 players, each playing 4 games); Then the Winners of each
Group emerge to play in a Second Round-Robin against each other.
David Pritchard. Death notice.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I was sorry to read of David Pritchard's passing and my condolences go to his friends and family. I heard of Mr. Pritchard's departure the day after I found a CV link to order an autographed copy of his chess variants book, which I once had the pleasure of viewing at the Cleveland White Collection. As a gesture of appreciation and respect for Mr. Pritchard and his work, I propose a 'David Pritchard Memorial Game Design Contest.' Each submitted game would be dedicated to the memory of this impressive man.
Mike Adams. I do not have your e-mail, but hopefully you will see this. Would it be okay to quote your last comment,in the next Issue of Unorthodox Openings Newsletter? That would be UON 14 coming out this month. The comment I am referring to begins, 'Following my announcement...' Thank you for posting your informative comment. Best regards, Gary (Associate Editor, UON)
Switching Chess. In addition to normal moves, switch with an adjacent friendly piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Point of clarification: In Switching Chess I can understand the original rules, in which a King can switch to get out of check. But is a piece pinned to the King allowed to switch with another piece while pinned? I was under the impression that a pinned piece could not switch as that particular switching exposed the King briefly to check (illegal). My last few moves in a game were based on a pinning piece not being allowed to switch... but it did.
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In my opinion, not all games should be rated. At BrainKing, for example, you can play rated or unrated games. There is a checkbox to indicate at the game invite whether it will be rated or not. Yahoo has this feature as well. Players also have indivdual ratings for each game-type played. Someone could be 1920 at Chess, 1700 for Shogi, 1800 for Xianqi, as an example. In my case, I play some games, like tournament games seriously... but others I play strictly for fun, taking only seconds to move after seeing the position... If all games were to be rated I'd have to give up the fun 'coffee-house style' games.
Switching Chess. In addition to normal moves, switch with an adjacent friendly piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Andreas Kaufmann suggested two resolutions: 1) I play another move instead of 22. Re1 and we start using a new rules (pinned piece can't switch). 2) Gary takes a move back, which was based on assumptions that a pinned piece can't switch and we continue without this rule. I like solution #1. I think a pinned piece cannot move, just as a castling can not occur through a check. Tony Q. (the games inventor) also leans towards this concept, thought it was not addressed in the rules. By going back to allow Andreas a replacement move for 22 we are at a point in the game where our different mind-sets is irrelevant. Andreas, if you agree to option #1 I will go back to the end of my move 21 and you can make a different # 22. We would then play on with the rule that a pinned piece cannot expose a King to check (similar to the castling rule). Please let me know as soon as possible and we can recommence. And thank you for offering 2 possible resolutions. Sincerely, Gary
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The idea of retro-active ratings is a displeasing 'after-the-fact' concept to me. The reason has to do with coffee-house style care free games versus tournament rated games. When I played chess at the Edgewater Park Invitational, for example, I only lost 1 game, I drew against a 2000 USCF rated player and only lost to a 2300 USCF rated player. The 6 games involved 10 hours of playing. Now, I also play at a coffee-shop. Wild fun games with just 15 minutes on the clock. These are not rated and we can try bold ideas that we would likely avoid in a rated game. By comparison it as as if someone comes up and says, 'Hey, we've just rated your coffee-house games and fudged them into your USCF rating.' In regard to the 1500+ rating I saw by my name here, by comparison: Best USCF was 1943, Rating in MSN real-time play broke above 2000, rating against Chess computers reached 2110. Current Gothic Chess is about 1975. In regard to Chess Variants I would like to see the following system, which seems fair: All players start at 1600 (or 1500 if preferred). Rated games do not begin until New games are started, say to go in effect Jan. 15th (or some other date). In-progress games which may have been for fun or simply experimental, do not count. As example: When I played a fun-game of Maxima with Roberto, he gave me lessons during the game. Very helpful lessons. Would that have happened in a rated game?
The following website discusses rating calculations. It may be of use in the CV Ratings project. The site includes example calculations. http://www.chess-express.com/explain.htm
It may be possible to add PROV after a player's rating. This means it is a 'Provisional' rating which only becomes official after 14 games have been played. The USCF uses that system. But perhaps it is not worth the effort. Anyway, it is an idea.
I set up a board for Mir32 and put my homemade 3D Cannons and 3D Elephants on it. It then occured to me that others may benefit from these pieces, which are simple to make and look pretty neat. To make Cannons: (1) buy a cheap plastic set. (2) Carefully break or cut the turrets off of the Rooks and sand or file smooth. (3) Carefully cut the top sphere off of 4 pawns. (4) Glue the pawn-sphere (Cannon ball) at the top of the altered Rooks. Note that you can keep white with white, or put a white 'cannon ball' in a Black Cannon and visa versa to make them more noticeable. I kept mine all one color. To make Elephants: Cut the center out of Bishops and glue the Bishop tops to the bases. Now we have 'very short' Bishops which make great Elephant pieces for Shatranj Variants and Mir32, etc. There is no temptation to make Bishop moves with these pieces due to their truncated appearance.
Mir Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I find Mir32 to be an excellent game... quite fun. The 8 x 8 board is comfortable for the armies employed. The Elephants, like 2-step Bishops which retain the Shatranj Elephant leap are great pieces with lots of potential. The single Cannon adds a lot to think about, as does the General (which moves like the Dragon Horse in Shogi). The best way to open remains a mystery to me. I think this game would be a great contender for a future CV multi-game tournament, or even a single-game tournament. I hope other CV members will give this one a try. Well done David!
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In regard to the 'bell-curved scale of probabilities,' I think we should be seeing the bell-curve as a distribution of the number of players (y-axis) with respect to playing strength (x-axis). Thus giving us the bell. But perhaps we are refering to 2 different curves here. In regard to probability, I read that a 200 point rating difference implies that the higher rated player should be winning 3 out of 4 games between the 2. I can look up the source later. I again mention the following website as it offers a relatively simple method of rating calculation. I still believe that it may be of great value in the CV Ratings project. The site includes example calculations. http://www.chess-express.com/explain.htm
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.