Comments by vickalan

Thanks Joel for clarifying the sample game. I just wanted to make sure I understood the game. It's an intersting variant!  Good work.:)

Ads look reasonable to me. Not any worse of better than plenty of other websites. (But I'm surprised the ad for House of Staunton Variant Kits leads with a blurry photo - probably related to ad creator - not CVP).

But since we're on the topic of "presentation" would it be possible for CVP to have a few forum topics in categories (rather than all mixed together)? Categories can include "Variant games", "Report web page problems", and "Tournaments" (for example).

Sometimes it seems the majority of discussion is about problems, and not variant chess playing itself.

But to close with a "Plus" - I like the look of the new opening page.  Great work to the editors!

Since we're talking about bugs, I often see what appears to be "code" mixed with the display.

Right now, just under the title, I see text which reads, "Database Query: SELECT * FROM Comment WHERE IsDeleted=0 ORDER BY CommentID DESC LIMIT 25"

At least I assume this is a bug. I don't know what it means, and it just takes space away from the other (usually) interesting stuff.:)

The link on this page is still dead. With this page linking to a non-existing website, and almost no other information, I wonder if this page should be deleted altogether.

There are three other pages for "Roman Chess", so removing this page won't cause any harm - just good housekeeping.

Hi Fergus, Greg, and other editors. Thanks for all your work with improving the fonts and CVP's layout. It's looking great!

A little before the work with typography started, I submitted a page for a chess piece which is called the "Huygens". The page is here:

http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/huygens-chess-piece

The request for review became lost during all the work for fixing and improving CVP's layout. Will someone be able to review the page now?

The huygens has been played in games, and has recieved some attention, including from the math community, in particular due to its mathematical properties when added to chess games on an unbounded board (i.e. "infinite chess").

Thanks for all your help and work with CVP.:)

I agree to get rid of the obsolete link - especially since it is advertising something that isn't being sold anymore (and detracts from items that are really being supported and advertised on these pages).

It might even be good to delete the page altogether - there's three other pages in CVP about Roman Chess. My opinion is that games that aren't being supported by the original author, and aren't historically notable, and aren't being played, only deserve low-priority for editorial elaboration. (Just my opinion, but I'm not a CVP editor. I just like to keep up-to-date on the most recent games, and play a few once in a while).

fyi: I also like to stay up-to-date on variant chess theory, and variant engines such as your ChessV (one of the very rare variant-chess engines and DOES deserve more attention).

Is there a way to know when this page was written?

The introduction says "An upcoming commercial chess variant with collectible, tradable pieces", but some comments are more than 10 years old.

I can't find a publication date for this variant. (If it's there but I overlooked it please forgive me).

Thanks Greg, that looks awesome - now it's actually an interesting article!

I believe it's one of the few variants where the inventor made a physical set available (but perhaps not of supurb durability). The board appears to be a printed 10x10 sheet of paper, and the one variant piece appears to be a "pawn" from a chess set of larger pieces. (Thus the archer is pawn-shaped but larger).

To my knowledge, other variant games where the author released a physical set include Capablanca chess, Seirawan chess, and Grand chess.

Does anyone know if ther are many others?

With the ability of modern software to create high-resolution game illustrations, the need for a physical set isn't as important as it was historically. It's interesting to know about the games that were once availabe with a physical set available for OTB play.

Thanks Fergus. So the entry in the alphabetical listing is a little out-dated "An upcoming commercial chess variant with collectible, tradable pieces"

Not sure if it can be changed, but the entry drew my attention because inventors that make the commitment to release actual physical variant chess sets is of interest to me.

A few questions/comments:

About the optional multi-capture: Rules say it is for new leapers/jumpers, so this includes knight, speedy knight, cat, star-cat, and eques rex, corrrect?

(I'm assuming the knight is regarded as new because of it's different allowed initial move, and promotion rule compared to classical chess).

The knight does say "may not double capture during the 2-step move". I take this to mean the initial 2-step move, and not its normal 1-step L-shaped move.

When a knight makes an L-shaped move, there are two ways to move over squares it jumps over. The optional capture allows TWO pieces on EITHER one of its two path to be captured, plus the destination square, correct? (so capturing three pieces possible in one move).

(or can the knight capture all 4 squares it jumps over, plus the destination, for 5 total captures)?

Last, I'm wondering if the very first sentence should be changed a little:

Instead of:
...but not mostly not because of it's L-shaped move...
better as(?):
...but mostly not because of it's L-shaped move...

Sorry to bring up minutiae, but I really like this game. If I didn't like it, I would't be asking these specific and detailed questions.:)

I have a few questions about this page.

First, does CVP have any connection with Zillions of Games? (other than both are about variant chess).

If there is no connection between the two websites, then what is the purpose of this page?

Is there an interest for CVP to promote Zillions of Games, could it be done more in a general way (like an ad on the home page) rather than at one specific game?

Also, some of the content on this page appears to be obsolete. Visitors such as me may end up wasting their time opening links that don't exist, or link to non-remarkable information.

Should this page be deleted altogether? (especially in light of the fact that Greg did superb work to make a better page for Roman chess).

Also, what does "It is categorized as Orthodox chess" mean? (mentioned on this page).

Thanks for any explanation or insight into the purpose of this page.

Should this page be deleted? It appears the link goes to a site that does not exist.

Thanks Fergus. From the alphabetical index it appears there are many pages that are links to Zillions of Games.

I appreciate your feedback.

Does anyone know how well a chess engine will play this game against a human?

It's not convenient, but this game can be played against an engine by setting the engine to its strongest level, then letting it play a move. If you refuse the move, then you make the engine go back, and play a different move (temporarily setting to a lower level, until you find the engine's "2nd" best move).

The computer will reject your moves by checking if they are "best" or not.

To me it seems that in a chess opening to the mid-game, there are enough move options that the computer's "2nd best" moves will always be very good - better than most human players. Therefore the board position will start to favor the computer.

In an end-game, the engine may falter - because it will not play well knowing that the best move will likely be refused. But to get to the end-game, the computer may already have achieved a formidable advantage, and the human player will already be in a hopeless position.

I tried this once, and couldn't find a flaw with this type of strategy (from the computer's point of view). But I only got to about 8 moves, and then stopped the experiement. The computer was in a winning position, but this was winning as judged by normal chess - not refusal chess. So I could not say for sure the result was conclusive.

I'd like to try again, but am already busy in other games. Can anyone predict (or know) the result if taken to its conclusion?