Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Looking at the Diagram definition in the Page Source I notice this:

• It says royal=K , but it really should say royal=KJLMOT .
• The non-royal Queen is defined twice, in the same way
• The promoChoice parameter isn't useful without zone or morphing to *, and could have been omitted.

The morph parameters seem to do what you describe in the text.

@H.G.: Is it possible to work with two different pawns (e.g. berolina pawn and asian pawn) that are both promoted on the opponent's base line? I think they should have different IDs (I'm thinking of GC), but how does the PTA recognize different IDs for promotion? 
And what if both pawns have the same ID, but they should be morphed differently.
Can't find the solution. Thanks for an answer.

It depends on whether they would offer the same promotion choice or a different one. For the same choice all you would have to do is add the line

maxPromote=2

to the Diagram definition, and make sure the two promotiong pieces are the first two in the table. It doesn't matter what their ID is; only the IDs of the pieces they promote to must be used in promoChoice, never the ID of the promoting piece.

Offering a different choice is possible in the Diagram, by only have the first piece promote normally (the default situation), and defining a second promotion set, and letting the second piece morph to that. But this is not supported in the GAME code yet; only automatic morphing into a single type is supported there.

I would like my game ideas to be playable on other platforms as well. Is it possible to realize ideas on github/jocly as well? My visits there leave me perplexed and wondering how to get there.
Could someone please tell me what needs to be done?

@Richard Milner:
Do we want to continue our games?

In my opinion, we should end the games 'Queenmania (conquer style)' and 'Queens (conquer style)' because the perpetual recaptures cannot be solved. As long as there is no counter for this problem that ends the repetitions, we will go round in circles. (Perhaps the protagonists of the scene will realize this at some point).

How do you see it?

GitHub is a website where programmers publish the  source code of the programs they develop. It is not a site where you can play anything. But of course some of the programs published there are games. Those could be downloaded and compiled to run on people's own computers, and often the programmers already offer a compiled executable for download. To offer something there that others could use, you would have to write a program that plays it.

Jocly is one such program available on GitHub. It is a gaming platform for use on websites through a web browser, or running on your own PC through JoclyBoard. It is mainly a user interface, but is designed in such a way that it can easily extended with new games, with already a lot of supports for the tasks most chess variants have in common. So you would only have to program the part that is unique to your variant, in JavaScript.

We have a version of Jocly installed on CVP, and there is also one on my website, where people could browse to, and play the games they support.

Jocly is one such program available on GitHub. It is a gaming platform for use on websites through a web browser, or running on your own PC through JoclyBoard. It is mainly a user interface, but is designed in such a way that it can easily extended with new games, with already a lot of supports for the tasks most chess variants have in common. So you would only have to program the part that is unique to your variant, in JavaScript.

We have a version of Jocly installed on CVP, and there is also one on my website, where people could browse to, and play the games they support.

And I do hope, one day, to get some of my simpler variants on there.

And I do hope, one day, to get some of my simpler variants on there.

Your variants are typically more 'regular' than Gerd's, in the sense that they could draw on existing chess-variants infrastructure of Jocly. For example, there is support for rectangular and hexagonal boards of any size and shape, but not for boards with switches, which would have to be programmed from scratch. There is support for normal, and even single locust captures, but not for 'recruiting' moves that make captured pieces appear elsewhere, or for neutral pieces.

For your variants the programming would be limited to indicating the piece moves.

For your variants the programming would be limited to indicating the piece moves.

For most of them, sure. For Aquachess or Chess on a Tesseract, probably not. (Zwangkrieg might be a bit of extra challenge too. And I'm not too sure about Short Sliders.)

@H.G.: Can you imagine adding a selection menu to the 'Create holes' button that allows you to choose the colour of the 'black holes'? In addition to black, white or perhaps beige would be very suitable. A colour selector like the one provided by MS Office would be more than ideal :-). Because with these holes you can create very nice suggestions. Black is a bit harsh.

@ editors: I would like to set my suggestion 'Toggle Chess' to 'Private'. Unfortunately the selection menu 'Edit this Page', 'Edit Metadata for this Page' etc. is missing. Is it possible to restore the selection menu?

Unfortunately the selection menu 'Edit this Page', 'Edit Metadata for this Page' etc. is missing. Is it possible to restore the selection menu?

As far as I can tell, it is not missing. But you have to be signed in for it to show up. To avoid any confusion, I have changed the Edit menu item "Edit Index Information" to "Edit Metadata".

I am logged in!

Unfortunately I don't see the menu, see here:

Thank you in the meantime.

Do you see the "Edit" drop-down in the top menu, next to your name? Try that.

To check on whether something peculiar might be going on for you, I am going to temporarily change your password, sign in as you, and then restore your password by copying its encrypted form back to the database.

I have now restored your password. The problem was that your code had an unclosed <script> tag at the end, and this enveloped the code that followed it. I switched your code from WYSIWYG to HTML and added the missing </script> tag. As long as you're including scripts in your code, avoid using WYSIWYG mode.

Somehow I'm not getting anywhere with my suggestions - 'Morphomania' excluded. Perhaps everything is within the bounds of norm.

I have adjusted my pending variants. It would be nice if this could be given some attention again.

A general question: Is there actually a ranking based on how often a variant has been played on Game Courier? That seems to me to be the real yardstick. Or have we had this before?  What do you think?

This page has that information (possibly subject to some noise from duplication) for finished games, but I'm not aware of it ever having been promoted as a means of discovery. The sample sizes for all but the most popular games are small enough to admit significant biases, and no account is taken of how recent the games are, which might go some of the way to explaining that

Sorry, I don't understand your text (I'm not a native speaker). Could it be a bit clearer?

The linked page has games in order according to number of games finished on GC, which is the closest we have to the inforation you asked about. But I don't think anyone's suggested using it as a kind of rating for games. One possible reason could be that the number of games played is quite small (CV's are a niche hobby!) except for the very most popular games (Shōgi, Chess, Sac, ⁊c.; only the first 15 games have over 100 games played) so statistical biases are quite likely; and the count doesn't take into account time, meaning that some games could have once been popular but now fallen out of favour, but would still show up with large numbers (I don't know how many, if any, this actually applies to in practice — probably it's unimportant with the small sample size anyway).

Thanks for the explanation. The idea does not seem to be practicable.