[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GlennOverby
I am working on the page for the last competing entry (Diminuendo) which will make 15. There is also one more set of changes to an existing entry which is on time. All competing entries will be ready for your votes by the announced date of May 1st.
Jared: No, I'm in my mid-40s; my =son= is well over twenty. But my nephews are 19 and 12. I helped raise them to be gamers, and they taught me Triple Triad and Dragon Ball Z CCG among others. As for the RPG thing, I'm old-school tabletop myself (I started with D&D in 1975), because you can simply do so much more and be sociable to boot. But the continuing advances in PC/videogame technology make those games better all the time.
Jared, the 'obvious' is untrue. I have played Triple Triad a number of times, and found it enjoyable. But my nephews no longer live nearby, so I haven't done so in a while. :)
Comments about the Queens (11 days to vote!) Fiend: It might work on the 12x12 board for which it was designed, but that long leap for an Immobilizer on 8x8 may have problems. Killer Immobilizer: This feels like too many rules. Tower of Hanoi: The objection to this creative piece is its use of sixteen checkers in addition to the usual pieces. But the idea has worthwhile potential anyway. Queen+Lame Camel: Does Camel Chess need a camel? If so, this is a reasonable choice. Queckers: A multi-moving Queen scares me. :) Ancestral Dragon: Knowing what a simple knight relay does, the relay power of this piece seems over the top. The S~Pawn~ing Queen: I wish the proposal had not allowed for up to 12 pawns on a side. That's a lot. I'm not sure which way to go. But I'm looking forward to the Bishops next month, which have some really cool ideas.
Yes, but Shogi has a whole bunch of generals. The promotion in rank is necessary to avoid falling from sight :)
That's also how I would interpret the proposal...one of the eight squares adjacent to a S~pawning Queen would need to be vacant to receive the created Pawn.
I would like to thank my fellow staff members for picking up the slack for me during a time of recent personal upheaval. I believe that all entries which have been submitted are now posted and linked. Contestants, thank you for your patience. The voting instructions will be posted soon after the April 15th entry deadline, but after the last of any last-minute entries is posted. I'm enjoying your creativity so far.
I can only speak for the Group A judges, but we have exchanged a couple of rounds of comments. I think the judges are unanimous on three of the four, if I understood my colleagues rightly, and are in the same ballpark on the remaining contenders. Further I cannot go until results are ready. :)
Five of the fifteen tournament games have finished. Standings are: Peter Aronson 2.0/3 Michael Howe 1.0/1 John Lawson 1.0/3 Michael Nelson 1.0/3 Tony Quintanilla 0.0/0 All players are playing six games. Aronson defeated Nelson at ximeracak. and Lawson at Rococo. Howe defeated Nelson at Cavalier Chess. Lawson defeated Aronson at Grand Chess. Nelson defeated Lawson at Chess on a Longer Board. Glenn
Mr. Martin: We have received your Diplomat Chess entry. We are experiencing problems with mail forwarding at the moment; if the situation is not cleared up in 48 hours or so I will mail you an alternate address for your submission. Glenn Overby CVP Competitions Editor
Comments on the field of Pawns: Eaglet -- Straightforward yet novel. Novice -- Curious. Is it stronger or weaker than a standard pawn? Left/Right Pawns -- Possibly tough to track. Rapid Pawn -- Another straightforward and appealing entry. Checkers -- These could be quite powerful. Is this hybrid good? Militia -- Rifle-pieces always introduce questions. Nickel -- Imaginative. Piece of Eight -- Alone, not so hot...if the Tower of Hanoi wins, :)
The January poll is done. Email to our 14 entrants for the February poll will go out later tonight. Suggestions are open for everything except the Pawn (which is being voted on now). Zillions programmers have six months or so to figure out how to program the Cube. If it can be done. :)
John, I'm glad your memory is better than mine. :)
I believe that David Short had expressed his willingness to judge as well, for whichever group he doesn't have an entry in.
I had withdrawn myself from consideration to judge earlier. Given the shortage of judges I am willing to consider judging Group A if necessary. My pre-deadline involvement with Group A designs is limited to one playtest game of Lions and Dragons Chess with the designer. Hans, feel free to assign me if you need me. Glenn
I have votes from seven of the nine entrants as of January 1. The four new people will be eligible to vote in the remaining 6 polls beginning in a couple of days. The new rules section will re-open for suggestions on Saturday, after the deadline for the current voting passes. The list for Pawns will close for good at that time, as the February poll will pick the Pawn. Also, two more suggestions have been posted.
Ow. Zillions did that to me once in a test game. :) Like the fool's mate in orthochess, once you've seen it you avoid it in the future. Thanks for the compliment. 'Beautifully treacherous' almost sounds like ad copy.
Thanks for the catch. I did get it backwards. It is fixed now; the notation on the page is really the Crab. :)
An excellent summary, indeed. Just to establish the futility of trying to get a standard name out of all this, I noticed that my Thronschach calls the piece a Cardinal, and my ABChess later the same year calls it an Archbishop. :) History is on both sides, and for Princess as well. But I also like Fergus's reasoning for Paladin.
I think that outward is the default usage within square brackets; the Rhino is simply z[WF]. I don't know about [nWF] for the Horse. Does nW make sense? I'm still mulling over how to define a long leap, short of using up more of the alphabet. The curly brackets are possible. Or parentheses. And I think the comma would be optional in that context.
Okay, I put up a page. We can continue the discussion over here. :) Question: How would some of you try to unambiguously describe the Horse of Xiangqi in Betza notation? nN is not perfect, because the Horse can be blocked on the orthogonal but not the diagonal. It's a question that has likely been solved, since the notation provides for things like p for the cannon. But I have not run across the answer.
I have written a summary of the notation as it stands, including the extension introduced for the Rhino. It is a bit more organized than Ralph's earlier notes, but probably could use some enhancement. It will be up soon. I didn't intend to start an animated debate, and I apologize for doing so.
I think that's pushing it. :) Defining moves alone (with a provision for divergent pieces) is hard enough. Note that Betza Notation doesn't begin to define castling, promotion, or en passant...just to name 'powers' of the orthodox pieces. And to attempt to do so would make it less useful, not more. My $.02, of course.
Thanks, John. I have z in my list of modifiers. While compiling my notes, I was thinking about compound notation for such pieces as bent riders and Xiangqi horses. I have an idea involving () and &, but wonder if other solutions exist. Defining y as a modifier for 'away from the square of origin' (a common enough limitation in these moves), we might have: (W&yF) for the Xiangqi horse F(F&yR) for the Gryphon. I also considered extended notation for leaps greater than (3,3). Since there is an indefinite number of such leaps, the possibility of something like [14] comes to mind in lieu of another hard-to-remember letter for a (1,4) leaper. [17][55] for the Root-Fifty Leaper. I don't know what other extensions may be in existence or proposed.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.