Comments by GaryK.Gifford

Sam Wrote: This game seems too drawish; it is too hard to launch an attack
and too easy to defend. The fact that three out of eight games played on
Game Courier ended in draws seems to support this contention. 

Response: I think the draws indicate that (a) the game is somewhat
balanced.  (b) no one has yet mastered the game.  In fact, in 1 of those
draws I was very lucky to avoid a loss.  I was about to lose but I
Catapulted my King onto Carlos Carlos's side of the board where my King
was safe.  So, that little oversight created a draw. And, if we used the
Sam T. idea of archers over there not being able to shoot... guess what,
that makes the game more drawish, not less.  But anyway, remove my lucky
draw and we have only 1 out of 4 draws.  Also, I have played a large
number of games against Antoine Fourrière's ZRF.  And guess what?  No
draws for me.  Not one.  I win or I lose.

I watched a USCF chess expert play the ZRF... he was amazed by the game
and he lost over and over again.

Also, it must be remembered that the CoT games at CV are played with time
delays, usually of several days.  In such games outright blunders (seen in
over-the-board play) are much less common.

As for the ideas to improve the game, I appreciate the comments but do not
care to implement any changes.  I think the game works well as it is.... in
fact, I think it works extremely well.

Note that the ZRF does have a setup option which was suggested by 
Antoine Fourrière.  I had no problems with Antoine's idea (see the ZRF)
and think he did a great job with the Catapults of Troy zillions program. 
If you play it at a decent level I doubt very much that you will see lots
of draws.

In reading over issues regarding Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, my Catapults
of Troy, and Sam T's not-yet-in existence 'Crossing the Rubicon'
(including the well written Joe Joyce wargaming comment)... Sam now has
enough ideas and enough distance from Catapults of Troy that I feel I
should step out of this scene.  Also, in regard to all pieces moving at
once [on a side], I recommend looking at the game 'Conquest' by Donald
Benge.  In Donald's game you have Elephants, Chariots, Ships, etc.  His
later variant includes Catapults and Siege Engines.  Anyway, in that game
you can move several pieces on a turn.  Mr. Benge and I corresponded for
about a year in regards to Conquest and we tried to get it going in
over-the-board play in Ohio.  It didn't happen, no fault of the game
though... just too many couch potatoes in these parts... chess has even
dried up in my neck of the woods.  Anyway, back to the subject, the
Rubicon endeavor could end up being an effort to combine elements from
games of Glinski, Benge, and myself.  I tried a similar 'combo-concept'
when I created Shanghi Palace Chess.  Though I liked the results, many
others complained about it... I sure took a beating in the CV comments. 
May Sam's efforts go more smoothly than mine... I truly wish him well.

Someone had written about 'draws' in relation to Catapults of Troy.  No
name appeared in the comment column.  They wrote, in part,'Draws are not,
in themselves, a negative.  There is always the potential for such to be
judged according to material or position. So a player might obtain a draw,
but might lose according to their material or position.'

My response: I suppose this is like the stalemate in Chinese Chess, but we
can't call it a draw that wins... it is a win.  Or in Shatranj, single
bare King... might look like a draw, but it is a win for the King +
material side.  In Chess, a stalemate is a draw, and bare King can end up
being a draw.  But is anything wrong with that?

The commentor continued, 'The draw question should be whether a player
might through a set of specific moves force a draw from the start of a
game, not whether any potential draw is possible.  In other words, by
achieving a particular position on the field the player is able to prevent
the opponent from ever achieving the stated capture goal of the game.'

My response:  In many good games a draw can be forced, if this is not the
case, then it means one side will always win (with best moves).  However,
it is very important to note that this forced draw assumes the absolute
best moves be made.  Thus, in a 'perfect game' of chess a draw is
forced.  But, the human mind is not capable of handling the solution.  The
solution is mind boggling.  But the computer Hydra seems to have it (or be
close).  It has never lost a game (from either side).  It has had draws.

The writer continued. 'And as stated, a draw-ish game is not, by its
nature, 'broken', it can still be evaluated by material or position if
the players desire.'

My response: Why?  What is wrong with 2 players getting a draw?  I played
in the World Open in 1980 and in the New York Open back in 1983... I had
some very hard fought draws.  I see nothing wrong with that.  To win, I
need to play better than my opponent.  I need to avoid errors... hope that
my opponent makes the last blunder.

The commentor went on to say, 'Though if it is possible to force a draw
each and every game, the stated capture goal might be considered
inconsequential or at the least merely an influence during the game.'

My response: At present, I don't understand this comment.  But as I
started out saying, A perfectly played game of Chess should result in a
draw.  If this is not true, it means one side can always win in a
perfectly played game.  In either case, most humans (even World Champions)
don't play perfect games.  All in all, closely rated players are more
likely to draw than those with big rating differences.  To avoid draws,
play better, don't re-design a time-honored game.

The person concluded, 'I apologize to Gary for my rant.'
My response: Apology accepted, but not at all necessary.

In conclusion, There was once a man who outplayed his opponent in chess. 
He promoted a pawn to Queen and said, 'I win, you cannot move.'  The
other said, 'This is a stalemate. It is a draw.'  This was confirmed and
the first man yelled, 'What a stupid rule!  I should win!  Look at this! 
I'll never play this stupid game again!'  True story.  But what is its
point?  Quite simple, 'Know the rules of the game you are playing.  And
be careful, there just might happen to be a thing called a draw.'

I was surprised to see a request for investors posted here... but that is
not the real reason I'm commenting.  I don't care for the 'pink' board
at all.  The 'pink' aspect certainly turns me away from the game.  This
has nothing to do with the game itself (which might be good, I don't
know... I looked at the pinkish board for a short while and had to turn
away).  Some may think that the board does not matter, but research color
theory and you will see that color and appearance are very important.

It is similar to the fact that I don't play chess with Scooby Doo or
Simpsons sets, etc. But these are okay for collectors and kids. Still, 
 I see no desire to collect Pink Sets. As for women needing pink sets, 
I think that is a silly notion.  The Polgar Sisters, Maria Ivanka 
(9 x Hungarian Women's Champion) and many other great Women Masters have
no problem playing with standard official FIDE and USCF accpeted colors. 
I defeated women at the chessboard, not once did they imply that they
lost because the board was not pink.

One last thought, if the game is truly aimed at women, why call it 'Bishops' 
(a masculine religious figure association)?  Perhaps 
'Lady Clergy in Pink Chess' would be more fitting?
Of course, you mention selling the game in China, so 
translation considerations must be looked into.

The packaging for the game looks quite good.  The green box looks nice, the
black and white board is a pleasant change from the hot pink.  I imagaine
the board folds in 1/4 sections to fit in the box.  I visited the web-site
listed in the picture and saw this message:

This domain name expired on 02/19/2006 and is pending renewal or
deletion.

Will the bishopthegame.com site come back under your control?  
Do you have another site?

Thanks, Carlos, Jeremy, and Antoine Fourrière for the congratulations.
Antoine wrote, 'The victory went first and foremost to the better player,
but also to the inventor of the excellent Catapults of Troy.'  Actually,
Antoine, I feel that you are the toughest of players (who typically cuts
through board positions as though they are made of butter)and that I
simply had a lucky break in our Shogi game.  In fact, Joe Joyce had a
better Grand Chess position into the middle game, in Marseillais Chess
Michael Madsen was clobbering me with his Bishop and Queen manuevers and had
me on the verge of checkmate for many moves (... but I got a reprieve);
Shatranj with Tom was quite an uphill battle for me, and a long one at
that.  Switching Chess was a real gray-matter buster with Andreas, as was
Caissa Britannia with Roberto.  My point is, any one struggle could have
easily ended differently.   You also mentioned Catapults of Troy, my child
of sorrow.  Truth be known, after not doing so well in Tournament 1, I
decided to sit Tourn # 2 out.  But then I thought Catapults of Troy was on
the list, so I signed up.  When it later was dropped from the list, then
voted in, then vetoed back out I actually indicated that I was withdrawing
from the tournament but that my entry fee could be kept as a contribution. 
Fergus and I exchanged a few e-mails and he convinced me to stay in the
event.  So, I did.  But I would have liked Catapults of Troy to have been
a part of it.  Anyway, in my mind I was playing my first several games
with the romantic notion of 'fighting for the honor of Catapults of
Troy.'  Silly perhaps, but it helped me get started. Again, thanks to all
who participated and thanks for many excellent battles.  And thank you
again Fergus, for an excellent event.

Thanks for answering the question regarding castling.  I agree that
castling is not necessary, but allowing it would provide for much greater
opening variety, and I think would be a significant improvement.  The
possibility for opposite side castling and Kingside Pawn Storms vs
Queenside Pawn Storms [backed by Rooks and or Templars] would be
possible... and very exciting chess, I think.

I would have castled Kingside, but with castling not allowed it seems that
dropping my King back to the Templar zone is pretty much forced, and that
opening variance is therefore limited.

I think it would be nice to offer a variant that allows for castling. 
Over the years you could see which variant was the most preferred.

Best regards.

I was wondering if there is a missing-link (no pun intended) regarding the
Shogi, Xianqi, Chess Tournament now going on.  The event appears to be
very low profile, almost invisible.

It would be nice if there was a link (in that right-hand link zone of the
What's New Page') to a Chess/Shogi/Xianqi Tournament table so we could
check what was happening in this 'first of its kind' event.

In regard to the previous comment about this game: The rules page includes
this information:

. . . Use your chess set, playing cards, and dice with our illustrated
rules pamphlet . . . 

The cost and purchasing address is provided on the rules page.

A game courier pre-set (non rule enforcing) is now provided at this link:

http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DBordahBee%26settings%3DAlfaerie

I'd say the Mammoth is a very week piece... looking at it in the following
way, that is:  Many pieces can appear in many games, but the Mammoth is
'Copyright' we are told and cannot be used by anyone or legal measures
may be taken against them.  It is so sad to see such gaming piece nonsense
(my opinion, of course).  So, I see the Mammoth as week, as it is
unfortunately tied to legal red tape.... Long live the pieces that can be
shared by the players and inventors of ChessVariants... and a thanks to
the people that freely share pieces.  To the selfish piece creators, a
thumbs down.