Ratings & Comments

The copy of Murray that I own is the 1969 reprint, not the 1909 original.


It may well be that the reprint in some manner updated the copyright? Laws
on this subject have changed from time to time...

Project gutenburg is usually plain text files. Can Murray be appreciated
fully without the diagrams? No. Can it be appreciated to some extent? Yes,
of course.

Modern scanners may be able to extract the text pretty well, but then if
you don't proofread what the scanner said, the book is seen as if
through a scanner darkly
(title of a book by l cordwainer smith; always wanted to use that phrase in
casual conversation.)

Big job, no matter what. Big disk space, but there are so many terabytes
now, how else to fill them? Big download for the reader. But, what a book!
And how much we all owe to it!

The diagrams will have to be described using FFEN, which the FFEN to HTML
converter will take care of the rest. And probably lots of proofreading.
But it is possible.

Err, I don't think Project Gutenburg is using FFEN -- just plain text.

What I mean is that FFEN is a way to convert the diagrams to plain text. 
and for the people who want to read it they would understand it. Moreover
this way a special reader can translat it to diagrams.

What happens if the top squares get filled up?  Is the game a stalemate, or
is there a way to clear out the top to make room fo the king and queen? 
Also this has some resembalance to Cheops, in which one of the two
objectives is to have the queen on the top level of the pyramidal board.

I think that it depends opon the variant and the wirteing style, a bare
bones rules would be preferable to a badly writen naritive which has the
rules in it, on the other hand a sci-fi/fantasy based varient would seem
stale or flat without somekind of backround.  And when it comes to
background there is a very large gray area, becuase you could easily say
that why a piece was chosen to move the way it does is part of a bare bones
discription, but sometimes the reasoning is so complex it could qualify as
literature.

There is also a question of 'What is literature?' a common question is 'Is
a comicbook literature?' in this case it might be better as 'Is a
discription literature?' some would say yes, others no.  Certainly I would
always prefer a discrtiption into which some kind of tone or voice has been
put, but that is not the same as haveing something on the level of Ralph
Betza's Nemoroth, which gives you the feel and atmosphere of the game.  If
everyone could write on that level then we would have an impressive
colection of CVs and literature in one, and games that otherwise might have
been overlooked would be noticed and played.

I fear that I may have lost track of my point near the first or second line
but if I try and go back and change it this will make even less sense. 
Basicly what I'm saying is that a well writen back story or setting could
never hurt a discription, and in some cases it's absense would.  Also a
discription its self can have a certain literay flavor to it that makes it
easier to read and understand than a bare rules only format.  I think that
the most disireable form of a discription is first and formost the rules,
backround information on how the game came to be and why the pieces are the
way they are, and any story or such thing that goes with it, i.e. a game
claiming to be elven chess should say a bit about how the elves played the
game.  If the rules are mixed in with the other elements, like for example
as in Nemoroth it may also be a good idea to have them listed sepreately,
also as in Nemoroth, so that those that don't want to read the non rule
related elements don't have to, and those that want to quickly refrence a
rule can.

I know I rambled and I hope it made sense and was in some way helpful.

Although the format of the CVP is like a database or encyclopedia, I think
that it is actually better thought of as a 'conversation' about chess
variants.  Many variantists probably actually play very little, and most
variants receive very little play.  Therefore, the main point of the CVP,
at least for some, is the communication of the ideas behind the variants.

As in any 'conversation', although the primary focus is to impart
information, a desire to amuse, entertain, and interact is perfectly valid.
 Also, some variants are better understood with the story that inspired
them.  A bare-bones exposition of the Nemoroth rules would seem
incomprehensible and arbitrary.  Other variants that are hard to appreciate
without their background stories are Peter's Ruddigore Chess, or Dan
Troyka's Hitchhiker Chess.

One is on thinner ice with descriptions that are just plain silly, like my
Pizza Kings.  It is important to avoid a descent into pointless sophomoric
humor, like the relentless plays on words in the headlines of bad
newspapers.

We should also remind ourselves, when writing rules, that the CVP has an
international following.  Therefore, it is likely that the point behind
Ruddigore Chess is completely opaque to someone with no knowledge of or
interest in late 19th C. English musical theater.  We also have to be
careful not to obscure the rules with verbal cleverness.

The beauty of the recently improved comment system, is that it provides a
forum for those so inclined to play with words and concepts, without
getting in the way of the clarity of the descriptive pages.

I think I might have had a point once in all this, but I ignored it and it
wandered away.  I like clever and amusing literate writing.  I think it
enhances the CVP, but it is not necessary to the CVP.  Intelligent,
well-thought-out, and clearly described variants are what is necessary.

Having had time to think of my earlier comment I am almost entirely sure
that I lost the point, the reader, or both.  I'll try to keep it short this
time.  I completely missed one of the points that I had wanted to make.  A
discription with just the rules can be writen in such a way that the author
puts their own tone or flavor into it, this gives the reader a feeling that
the author is speaking to them.  This effect is helpful because for some
reason it is easyer to understand the same information if it seems like it
is said to the reader, it is also easier to remember.  This probably
doesn't make it all the way to literature, but it is somehow more than a
barebones discription.  This somewhat goes with what John said about it
being a kind of conversation.

Pizza Kings is a charming piece of somewhat humorous literature; it won't
make you laugh aloud like 'The Literary Offenses of James Fenimore Cooper',
but it may bring a smile.

Many variants recieve very little play, while others become popular. In
order for a variant to become popular, people have to try it at least once.
How do you get your reader interested enough to try playing the game?

A good presentation can't hurt. At least if it's interesting to read,
people may read it all the way through, and that's a start.

Sometimes the idea of the game is sufficiently intriguing in its own right
that you get people to play it without anything special in the way of
presentation. 'There's nothing in the way of presentation, you can get
right at it.' (That's from _It's a Gift_, right?) This was the case with
Avalanche.

A good presentation is Partonesque. His games were always introduced with a
bit of a premise and a bit of whimsy.

In other words, like all good literature, it's advertising; or even product
placement, as in Refreshing Bubble Fizz Chess.

I had a point here somewhere, but it wandered off. Perhaps my point was a
neutral piece and my opponent moved it somewhere I can't see it.

I went back and reread Pizza Kings, and it's better than I remembered. 
Pizza Kings actually had a definite satirical purpose.  At that time,
people were suggesting various different armies with themes like leaping,
or spaciousness, or fizziness.  I just extended the theme to something
completely irrelevant to chess, and then developed the theme deadpan.  Part
of the point I was making earlier is that sort of thing is only pleasing in
moderation.  If I had gone on to invent the Avenging Appetizers and the
Beer Batterers, the result would have been far less than three times as
amusing.

I was also unclear in stating my preference.  I much prefer an entertaining
and engaging description.  I am one of those variantists who actually
rarely play, but, concurring with gnohmon's point, I found Nemoroth so
fascinating that I am actually playing an email game.  That is based on two
things: the terrific description, and the original mechanics.  In the case
of Nemoroth, they cannot be separated.  Without the story, the mechanics
would seem capricious.  Without the unusual mechanics, the story would just
be an exercise in cleverness, without point on the CVP.  Now, e.g., there
is a clear picture in my mind of a Leaf Pile, what it does, and why.

MY personal preference is for CV proposals that contain a minimum of
narration and a straight-forward presentation of the author's rules. 

I'm OK with very brief comments that actually simplify learning the rules,
but I have very little interest in extended narratives.

I hve played the game a few times. mate does take time but not 
impossible, in fact draws should be extremely rare, since captures are 
nearly impossible and positions can't be repeated, so a mating position 
will have to come up, and failing that a stalemate position which is 
also a loss or win depending on the player. Though I am looking for more 
playtesting. email: [email protected]

Values are different in Shogi, where the drops and 6th-rank limited
promotion rules change all values. After I sought out and visited the Shogi
equivalent of the Nihon Ki-In (but decided not t play because of my limited
shogi experience -- the exercize of finding it on the map and actually
finding my way to a remote region of Tokyo was quite rewarding enough!), I
downloaded the supremely weak shogi master program from the home of the
underdogs, and played quite a bit; and my impression is that (1) having
more Pawns is good, but not specific number of Pawns is worth anything; (2)
fR == ffN; Gold == Silver == 2 of the previous; R == B == 2 of the previous
(although R versus B may often be decisive).

But in a 'normal' game, what's a Silver worth? My ancient researches seemed
to indicate that adding the forward move+capture of Wazir to something else
is worth nearly half as much as adding a whole Wazir; and that adding the
sideways moves is worth most of the remaining half-Wazir. For the Ferz, I
forget. It's written down somewhere but of course forwards is worth more
than half.

Thus, the basic estimate for the Silver General is roughly 3/4 of a Knight,
and the basic estimat for the Gold General is somewhat more than 3/4 of a
Knight.

If the simplest possible estimates of the values are taken, then your
Elephant may possibly be worth 3/4 N and your Great Elephant may possibly
be worth 1.5 N, which is roughly the value of a Rook.

According to the shock-troop theory, the combination of weak FfW which have
no jumping move and the strong fWfDWA which does have jumping, this
combination interferes with the harmonious development of the army; but
Philidor's shock-troop theory, although it contains some truth, is not the
final word. Morphy showed how one can cause great damage to the opponent by
developing the Rook-valued pieces, and his example must be kept in mind
when you are playing an army that includes HFD or Great Elephants as
R-valued pieces.

If the Great Elephant is Rookish in value, then it is logical that splicing
equine genes into the Greater Elephant must produce a Q-valued piece; using
this in the same army would be consistent but it would be overkill.

If my guesses about the elaphantine values are somewhat near correct, then
why does your playtesting seem to hint that the army is too weak?

In my experience, the unreliable values produced by my pseudoscientific
guesses are actually more reliable than playtesting. The most common
problem with playtesting is that if you don't know how to use a piece to
best advantage, it seems weaker than it really is. Learning to use every
possible piece is difficult and time-consuming.

'I have some trouble thinking of the
   Great Elephant as a Rook-equivalent piece.'

It has two full atoms, half of another, and a quarter of another; this puts
it already in the Rookish range, though maybe a bit weak. The partial atoms
are the forward parts, which must boost it to full Rookitude.

You have inspired me to write Captain Spalding Chess, of which the most
important feature is that one may find

an Elephant in one's Pajama.