Comments by CarlosCetina
Congratulations, Cameron, on having won the tournament. If Jeremy is willing to continue playing, I could edit the special preset. He also could edit it and send to you the respective invite.
Seirawan Chess. Normal rules, except two extra pieces can be introduced: Hawk and Elephant (with zrf).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
1) Drop Chancellor on e1/e8
2) Drop Chancellor on h1/h8
3) Drop Archbishop on e1/e8
4) Drop Archbishop on h1/h8
5) Drop Chancellor on e1/e8 and Archbishop on h1/h8
6) Drop Archbishop on e1/e8 and Chancellor on h1/h8
7) Not to drop neither
So, Mats, I suggest you to introduce the two extra choices in the preset codification.
Universal Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Colorbound Conversion Rule seems to me nice, so let's apply it immediately at our bold adventure of exploring this utopian (crazy?) variant. Thanks for the idea!
Originally envisioned drops after moves and also lean for this option, so let's follow playing that way.
Which option you think would be the best? I am willing to play according to your taste.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Jeremy's last question, "In the current position of the game I cite, can the cannon pawns on e2 and a2 be seen as spotting the piece on c4?", has not been explicitly answered.
The current position cited is this:
The rule should reflect the real situation of an archer trying to hit the target when the victim is located at longer distances and needs help for focusing the shot, hence the role of the spotter.
The following diagram shows how I understand the matter.
Red circles indicate all the possible short range captures.
White circles indicate the possible positions from which the spotter would fulfill its role.
Green circles indicate positions from which any white piece [archer's friendly] would not fulfill the spotting role.
But this is only a personal interpretation and I'm, of course, willing to abide Michael's statement.
Universal Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes, of course, post the prototypes here, Jeremy. Not only the description about cannon pawns talks about edge squares but all Rococo's ones. In the rules section I wrote: "Rococo's pieces [chameleon, long leaper, swapper, withdrawer, advancer, immobilizer and cannon pawns] are subject of the pertinent adecuation to an 8x8 board, that is, it will be supposed that the game is played on a 6x6 board and, in consequence, the board's edge would be formed by "a" and "h" columns, and 1st and 8th rows." I have always seen the disjunctive whether to apply Rococo's "edge conditions" or not here in this variant as a minor issue that players could resolve by mutual agreement before a game. In contrast, find two people interested in playing Universal Chess is certainly a huge, giant, colossal problem! I appreciate very much your contribution of designing piece icons. To keep adding more pieces to this variant, the main task to be done is standardize the various piece sets into one: the Alfaerie-many.
Nachtmahr. Game with seven different kinds of Nightriders. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]We can get a first approach to the relative strength of these nightriders by placing them on the central square (g7) of a 13x13 board and counting the number of squares affected/checked from there.
Doing it, we would find these results:
| NN11 | Diagonal Wide Crooked Nightrider | 56 |
| NN02 | Straight Wide Crooked Nightrider | 36 |
| NN31 | Quintessence | 36 |
| NN00 | Rose | 32 |
| NN33 | Diagonal Narrow Crooked Nightrider | 24 |
| NN21 | Standard Nightrider | 24 |
| NN04 | Straight Narrow Crooked Nightrider | 20 |
Hence, the following equivalences should be near to be true:
NN11 = NN00 + NN33 = NN00 + NN21 = NN31 + NN04 = NN02 + NN04
Cetran Chess 2. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]GAMES
| Cameron Miles | Jeremy Good | Carlos Cetina | Gary Gifford | Joe Joyce | Sagi Gabay | Score | ||
| 1 | Cameron Miles | |||||||
| 2 | Jeremy Good | |||||||
| 3 | Carlos Cetina | |||||||
| 4 | Gary Gifford | |||||||
| 5 | Joe Joyce | |||||||
| 6 | Sagi Gabay |
TOURNAMENT
| Cameron Miles Gary Gifford Jeremy Good Joe Joyce Sagi Gabay Carlos Cetina | double round robin 150 days spare time every games starting from a same asymmetric setup | 1stcetran2tourney |
SETUP
Sissa. Move exists of moving a number of squares as rook and an equal number of squares as bishop.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks Joseph, I have just done the correction.
Game Courier Logs. View the logs of games played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Sounds good the idea; if it works, perhaps I could use it for recovering the broken logs of my random variants which are in total 26. By the way, I have in mind to invite Garry Kasparov to join this community of CVs fans for playing a game with me of either Symmetric Chess or Cetran Chess 2; then it would be useful, convenient, the presets of these variants to have enforced theirs rules. Could you, please, help me to do it? The key things that I don't know is how to code the Bishops Conversion Rule and the Sissa movement rule. I am very excited since if he accepts, it would be a historic event: the first former World Champion Chess that would play here at The Hall of the Chess Variants!
OK, with that is sufficient. Regarding the broken Fischer Random Chess logs, they are 78; only 19 are OK. If they can not be recovered, maybe they should be deleted. Hard decision.
The point is that in random variants is important to know the starting setup if you want to review a game OTB reading the moves directly from a paper sheet; in variants whose starting setup is always the same it is not so important that this position be recorded.
Ideally it would be nice that when you click PRINT both positions be recorded: the starting and the current. It's understood that normally you will print finished games.
By the way, there is a lot of Fischer Random Chess logs broken with messages such as "ILLEGAL: N c1-b3 on turn 3: There was no N on c1. The piece on c1 is a K. Go back and try again." [j_carrillo_vii-fergus-2004-138-495]
OK. It's now working correctly. There is another problem that happens only with randomized variants when one wants to print any entire game; only the final position is showed; it's impossible to review the game because one does not know what was the starting setup. Would there be any way to include both diagrams at once?
Again all the logs can not be reviewed since the position skips directly from the starting setup to the last move made.
Great! We can now easily review again the large number of games of the GC database.
Not entirely because on each turn the names of the players change alternately between White and Black.
A bug is obstructing to review any game log either in progress or finished. The position skips directly from the starting setup to the last move made.
Home page of The Chess Variant Pages. Homepage of The Chess Variant Pages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]What you say, Joe, is true; there is a core group of persons talking through time slowly, calmly on a wide range of topics. My concern, my worry [almost desperation] comes from to see the very, very, very... small number of players that at present are playing in Game Courier. What happens? Why the inventors do not play their own games? Instead of contact to David Howe, I would rather that he or Hans update the information about how one can help to run this site. Thanks for the suggestion.
One of the improvements that this website could have is to make possible that any contributor could delete any of his/her posts.
Why this website could not be like, for example, GAMEKNOT... a beautiful, glowing, lively point in the cyberspace?
By the way, you can find me there playing under the "yollo" nickname.
Double Chess. Two sets of pieces on 16 by 12 board. (16x12, Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]My comment on the impossibility that both kings might be checked at the same time was done in relation to DC2, when a player obviously can not put his/her own king in check.
It seems to be an impossible case. What about to play a game?
I have already checked the improvement. Thanks!
OK... Great! Why, when you review a game, the players name appear in the respective fields alternating successively between "White" and "Black"? Is there any way to fix it?
True. As you say, I was leaving the wildcard(*). The Database Search Engine works rightly. OK. Let's see the second bug tomorrow. It's very important to fix it.
There are two bugs in relation with game logs. 1. If you enter "Chess" in the Game Filter of the Data Search Engine [/play/pbmlogs/index.php], then are displayed not only the Chess logs but also every other whose Game Name includes the Chess word. 2. It is not possible to view any game move by move starting from the initial setup because the position is skipped automatically toward the last.
There is a problem with the Game Courier's Game Logs Index Page. It does not display the logs.
Do you know what is the cause?
UC-170-13. Universal Chess version featuring 170 different kind of major pieces and 13 different kind of pawns. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Drops can be made at the same time that any regular move, so you could either (1) capture the checking piece, (2) block the check or (3) put your king out of check, and to drop both pawn and piece.
As part of the general strategy of the game, the players should foresee PERMANENTLY when and where will drop the next piece by doing the adequate space.
How would you solve the troubles/inconveniences you are pointing out?
It's unlikely to happen that in the last turn which you are forced to drop a piece, there is nowhere to put it. Drops may be made at Seirawan Chess style. Dropping pieces even on the vacant square after moving any piece. But you are right, the Rules Set should previse such possibility. Let me think about it a bit. Thanks for the observation.
This particular variant has not been tested yet. I have tested the previous version, UC-73, dropping pieces every five turns and see it works fine. The novelty here now is to drop pawns also every five turns allowing pawns and pieces may be dropped at once any regular move. I'm confident that the weft/plot game as a whole will not be overly congested, but if so, of course, it could be remedied. I have launched an Open Invitation to try this variant. Why not make the pertinent clarifications by playing a game?
Universal Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]UC-170-13 features 170 different kinds of major pieces and 13 different kinds of pawns, including the Eurasian Pawn suggested by Richard Hutnik.
Rich: I'm absolutely agree in the convenience that "... pawns ... have one (or a few base) picture of them, and then stick dots or Xs around it to signify how it moves and captures." Unfortunately it's something I cannot make. The only thing I can do is to use the graphics [icons] from the "Alfaerie: Many" piece set.
Eurasian Pawn piece. A hybrid European and Asian Pawn.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'm now focused on trying to moving as much as I can in the hard and bumpy road that leads to the utopia called Universal Chess, and think the Eurasian Pawn may perfectly well be included in the next 3rd stage of such a road.
OK. I'm doing it rightnow.
Sky 
. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Both diagrams have the same opening setup but on different boards: 11x10 and 11x11. OK. Wait your email.
Regarding the "distorted diagram", I meant to that of my comment posted in October 16, 2009.
Sky's idea is excellent; I just want to see if it would be possible to find an opening setup such as the pieces be placed harmoniously following the basic notion of symmetry and at the same time they "...cannot come in contact with each other, allowing them to start their journey through promotion", as you said.
Given the drawbacks you point out regarding my before proposed setup ["After the Tripper, say on d1, moves to g4, it cannot move forward because the black Tripper on g10 can capture it. And also, the black Tripper on g10 now cannot move. Same with the Tripper on g1, after it moves, it also cannot move forward, because of the black Tripper on d10, which now cannot move too."] what about these other couple of setups?
If again there are drawbacks, maybe it could be solved by switching some pieces.
I would be honored if you post a Sky's Carlos Cetina Variant, but I'm not looking for that. I would be happy if we [you and me] find an opening setup that fulfill both requirements: the yours [pieces cannot come in contact with each other, allowing them to start their journey through promotion] and the mine [pieces placed harmoniously following the basic notion of symmetry].
Sky makes me remember Jörg Knappen's Nachtmahr that also features pieces with awkward moves. Sky and Nachtmahr are related in the sense that both give life to that kind of [hard, tough, uncomfortable, complicated] pieces.
I agree that introducing a queen or an alfil/dabbabah would destroy the mood of the game; admit it was a suggestion quite superficial.
Sorry for the distorted diagram; anyway by clicking on the EDIT button it can be seen rightly.
Essentially, what I really like to say is why not to introduce reversed or rotational symmetry in the setup? For example thus:
Do you see any flaw in this setup? Is there any other reason why not to accept it?
I like your ideas but it's hard to me to admit the lack of symmetry in games [like Sky] whose starting setups are not randomized; in these last my likings are inverted: I prefer asymmetric setups regarding one another side.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks Antoine. Unfortunately I deleted accidentally the game in which was the position object of discussion, so we have no more any base to follow commenting the issue. However, by means of the "MOVE pieces by yourself" resource, I'll try to reproduce a similar situation.
Yáng Qí. Westernized adaptation of Chinese Chess.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]When I click on the CONTINUE button after sending my moves in the game we are playing, I get always this message: "The logfile ../pbmlogs/y%25c3%25a1ng_q%25c3%25ad/fergus-cvgameroom-2010-351-107.php does not exist."
By other part, taking advantage of this cibernetic corner, I report this other problem: when one accepts any invitation either open or personal, the system automatically assigns Black [2nd player] to the player who is launching the invitation.
Relativistic Chess. Squares attacked by the opponent are considered not to exist. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]OK. If no one else sees what I see, perhaps is due to I'm lost in the mazes of my mind. Naturally, I will play according to the viewpoint of my opponents. Still have not received any reply from Kevin Whyte.
Played two games with him:
1) ultimatecoolster-cvgameroom-2009-314-878
2) ultimatecoolster-sissa-2009-353-907
I became fascinated with the variant and decided to work for making it more known. Thus, like a first step, invited to Nicholas Wolff and Jochen Mueller to playtest it.
As a part of the divulgation, at July 19 posted a comment here in the Comments and Ratings section looking for to clarify the rules with the collaboration of the people in general.
I appreciate all the comments made here and am confident that among all those interested in this issue will finally find a consistent set of rules for this astonishing variant!
"We should view this matter like something that happens at two different levels or planes of reality: the first would be the "players level", a virtual field; the second, the true reality, that we all see as viewers, as spectators.
"Let's call them
"VP = virtual plane
"RP = real plane
"At RP the board is physically existent and formed by 64 squares that always are existent.
"At VP both players see two different things. Red sees that he is checking White's king; White sees that the pawn is not checking his king.
"Let's suppose h6 is empty, that is, White's king is not checked by any other piece.
"White's turn to move. Since he sees his king is not checked, he makes any normal move.
"Then comes Red's turn to move. Although he sees that his pawn is checking the king, he cannot make anything because in this variant the object of the game is to checkmate the advesary king, not to capture it; Red cannot force White to move his king from f3!
"What Red must make is with the participation of his remain pieces to put White's king in a position such that from White's viewpoint White's king be checkmated, such that White admits that condition."
Right. I have no heard any comment from you about the metaphoric idea of seen this variant like something that happens at the same time at two levels. The arguments you have been wielding hold and are quite valid at the RP. The case we are analizing shows clearly the existence of the VP, that is, the relativistic concept of this variant. The dispute is centered in the status of e4. It is inexistent for Red, existent for White's king [emphasizing ONLY for White's king not for his remain pieces]. This difference of viewpoints is a reality from the RP. We all that view the things from the RP must be fair with both players. Speaking in general, we should state a rule for this variant that says something like this: if a piece with a ferz or wazir capturing range is distant from the opposite king two squares [on the RP], then the relation/situation among them shall not considered like check. Therefore, in this only case we would have to accept the pretty weird case [as Jeremy says] that despite a player sees he is checking the adversary king, he cannot make anything. If we introduce a new category of checks, Red could say White: "cuasi-check" or "semi-check".
If on d5 were placed a bishop or a queen instead of a pawn, from White's viewpoint would be check and White would be forced to move his king away from f3. Do you see the difference?
I have just emailed to Kevin. Waiting for his reply. Sorry for we have been missing to the co-inventor Lee Corbin. Christine: The ways of describing knight's move are 4 because also is possible one to the side then two orthogonally up. Jeremy: to me also sounds pretty weird the fact that Red can not force White's king to move away from f3 [assuming h6 is empty]. I have no the guilt of things are different from the relativistic viewpoint. When one runs at a speed close to that of light it happens very weird things like the dilation of the time, lenght contraction and mass increase. But, of course, I shall adopt and fulfill the rules that arise from this discussion. Fergus: Your inference, "it is only empty spaces that cease to exist when attacked" is very important. In the case of facing rooks, bishops or queens they are considered to be adjacent occupying existent squares, so the player to move may capture his counterpart. Then, there are 4 persons agree [Christine, Fergus, Charles and me] in moving the knight like a true knight by dropping it directly to the (1,2) square if this is existent and, in the contrary case, to follow moving like nightrider until it lands on an existent square.
If we admit the opposite viewpoint, where is, what is the relativity concept of this variant?
We should view this matter like something that happens at two different levels or planes of reality: the first would be the "players level", a virtual field; the second, the true reality, that we all see as viewers, as spectators.
Let's call them
VP = virtual plane
RP = real plane
At RP the board is physically existent and formed by 64 squares that always are existent.
At VP both players see two different things. Red sees that he is checking White's king; White sees that the pawn is not checking his king.
Let's suppose h6 is empty, that is, White's king is not checked by any other piece.
White's turn to move. Since he sees his king is not checked, he makes any normal move.
Then comes Red's turn to move. Although he sees that his pawn is checking the king, he cannot make anything because in this variant the object of the game is to checkmate the advesary king, not to capture it; Red cannot force White to move his king from f3!
What Red must make is with the participation of his remain pieces to put White's king in a position such that from White's viewpoint White's king be checkmated, such that White admits that condition.
We all that enjoy living at the RP what is what we see? The pawn is not checking the king.
Regarding the knight way of movement, as Christine points out there are three ways of describing it. Which of them we will choose? I'm definitively inclined to adopt the way that Charles suggested, mentioned at his first comment: to move the piece like if the action were a drop placing it directly on a square (1,2) away from the "origin square", regardless of whether the intermediate squares are or not existent.
I know this also raises a cloud of questions but we can go solving it gradually.
I'm going to email Kevin asking for his viewpoint. Searching by the Net I found his email address: [email protected]
There are certainly similarities between RC and WC. The agreement that Nicholas, Jotchen and I have taken regarding the knight is to move it like in WC; then I agree with the knight on h6 is checking the king. The fine point of the matter is the case of the pawn on d5. What you say, "the rules only specify that the King is exempt from the rule that attacked spaces don't exist for pieces, not that it's attacks on spaces do not make them non-existent", is exact but it does not refute White's argument. There are two opposite arguments: 1) From Red viewpoint it's check because e4 is inexistent; 2) From White viewpoint it's not check because e4 is existent. Like an arbiter, I would give the reason to White because the status of the board [regarding existency or inexistency] is changing move by move; after Red move 22... fxd5, White faces a NEW situation in which he sees there is an adversary pawn placed on e5, and sees there is an intermediate square between that pawn and his king. In other words, is the viewpoint of the player to move will determine the legality or illegality of a given move.
I would like to know your opinion about this variant. I find it interesting enough but feel the rules need some clarification.
I'm playtesting it with Nicholas Wolff and Jochen Mueller. With both have rise to some differences of interpretation in some points.
If we [all those involved in playing and studying CVs] do not get a consensus on its rules, will we declare it unplayable?
If it is playable, it would be possible to enforce the rules to the preset?
Why this variant is not more known and popular?
The following position correspond to the game I'm playing with Jochen.
White to move. 23rd turn.
1) Is the pawn on d5 checking White's king?
2) Is the knight on h6 checking White's king?
Nicholas, Jochen and me have agreed in moving knight first one orthogonal step followed by one diagonal [outward] step. If the passing by orthogonal square were inexistent, the knight will follow moving orthogonally to the next existent square; if the landing diagonal square were inexistent, it will move to the next diagonal [outward] existent square.
This way of movement differs from the mentioned by Charles Gilman in his first comment, where the knight would move like nightrider if the square (1,2) away from the starting one were inexistent.
Both ways are logical and playable... which of them we will choose as the legal? Which we will consider the best, the most reasonable?
Regarding if the d5-pawn is checking to White's king or not, my opinion is that not. From the Red viewpoint it's check but from White's does not, because for White e4 is existent and therefore the [capturing] action of the pawn does not reach to f3.
Thanks Kevin Whyte for putting our neurons to work!
Christine, Joe, Charles (Gilman), Hans (Bodlaender)... what do you say?
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks Peter. I will follow your statement as the right viewpoint in this issue. However I wonder why the preset's program did not prohibit that double capture if it has reinforced the rules. I made these two moves to test the preset: 1) C h5-f7;f7-h7 by capturing two pawns (f7 and h7) 2) C h5-f7;f7-h9 trying to capture the g8-advancer after capturing the f7-pawn The preset's program allowed the first and banned the second. Perhaps Antoine Fourrière may have something to say since he was who reinforced the rules.
On turn 7 in a game I'm playing with Yeinzon I made a double capture with the chameleon which he estimates it is illegal while I don't think so.
Could you please tell us your viewpoint?
Thanks beforehand!
Coherent Chess (updated). http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/coherent.html.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]By the way, some days ago I was analizing theTrascendental Chess preset and found it has a bug. I think it is due to an error in the code box that it has written there this setup:8pppppppp32PPPPPPPP8.
I need your help. I'm trying to enforce the rules for this preset but the system says me "Syntax Error on line 0" and "Call to checks subroutine got misrouted", which I don't understand.
The preset is here. By clicking on the "MOVE pieces by your self" button you will can see displayed the full game code program.
On 35 and 75 lines I added the sissa names for uppercase and lowercase respectively. Hope to have done it correctly.
Thanks beforhand for your attention.
OK. The email address has been successfully registered and now appears on the Personal Information page. Thank you very much for everything.
I'm now able to register my email address at the change email page but, since there is no "before address", when I click on the Confirm button it appears the message:
The code failed to decrypt to the email address you wanted to change to. If you sent multiple email change requests, only the latest one will work. Please be sure that you followed the link from your very latest request to change your email.
string(32) "ߦ� �rCDO;uҪ/I��3o > 1�� f�:z;�"
string(24) "[email protected]"
Therefore the address has not been duly registered and still does not appear in my Person Information page. I wonder if you or David Howe could make that record directly without my intervention.
The good news is that at least we can already play our Episcopal Chess game!
I'm using regularly Internet Explorer version 8.
In the three cases mentioned the pages are incomplete. It appears only the board to the left side; above side the “play.chessvariants.org†logo joined to the banner promoting Game Courier; below the board the “Click here to view, print or download the image shown above†link; that’s all. There are no buttons nor boxes nor nothing else. I suspect this is relationed with the fact that I have none registered email address since when I launch an Open or Personal Invitation the pages are similarly incomplete and at the bottom say: “Although you are a registered member of chessvariants.org, you have not provided us with an email address for you. You cannot use this script to play games by email until we have an email address on record for you.†Now then, the other problem I have is that on the "http://www.chessvariants.org/login/change_email.php" page, appears deployed “the chessvariants.org†menu covering the box in which one have to write the new address. That "phenomenon" also occur in many other pages of this website such as - http://www.chessvariants.org/onthese.html - http://www.chessvariants.org/index/whatsnew.php - http://www.chessvariants.org/alphabet.html - http://www.chessvariants.org/help.html - http://www.chessvariants.org/onthese/award.html - http://www.chessvariants.org/rindex.html - http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?sortbydate=1 And in all and each of the GC's logs when I do click on them either as visitor or as user. I do not think this is because the computer I use since I access the internet from various cyber cafes. What do you think?
fergus-cvgameroom-2012-116-101
mgawalangmagawa-cvgameroom-2012-113-540
mgawalangmagawa-cvgameroom-2012-113-580
Regarding the "Person Information page" issue, you are right: I wrote the URL wrong. But I have another problem that I will explain tomorrow.
1) mgawalangmagawa-cvgameroom-2012-113-540
2)mgawalangmagawa-cvgameroom-2012-113-580
because the pages are incomplete.
Fergus: could you please fix it?
By other part, in my Person Information page I cannot edit my email address ([email protected]) because there is a sort of lock.
David Howe: could you please fix it?
Thanks in advance for both!
I'm withdrawing not only of this thread/tourney but also of this website. I have just realized that what I need is to try Chinese Checkers. So you all will can find me playing it at http://www.gamesforthebrain.com
In 2008-04-15 Gary Gifford said regarding CC: 'Because the Pawns are very different from Fide-pawns, I think the pre-set would be better if Pawn graphics were replaced with one of the many King-like graphics. If I played this game I would constantly be battling my mind's desire to see the Pawns as Pawns.
'On a similar note, the Knight piece is not a Knight, so a different graphic to remind us of this would be good.'
For these reasons I edited in 2008-11-09 this preset which is what we should use.
In 1998 I named the CC's knight as 'sissa'. The simplest way to describe its movement rule is (according to me) this:
Sissa moves each time as Rook AND Bishop following a movement pattern of the form nR+nB or nB+nR, where n is any whole number.
nR+nB means 'first n squares like Rook followed by n squares like Bishop';
nB+nR means 'first n squares like Bishop followed by n squares like Rook'.
Then, if for instance n=5, sissa MUST MOVE 5 squares as Rook followed by 5 squares as Bishop or viceversa.
There is no restriction on the movement direction of the second stage respecting to the first.
Sissa doesn't leap. All squares it passes by must be empty.
Greg: I understand your position and hope any editor help you; if not, we will have to use the Cataclysm's standard preset that, by the way, I see it's perfectly undertandable.
Charles Daniel: Given the order of priority, I take King to Bunker Leap as your bring. I think the best is to use the Shuffle system. We already have this preset.
We will play a Round Robin Tourney. Every player will play 2 games against every other - the game that each brought. The default choice of sides will be players are black in the game they brought. The only way this will change is if the opponent requests black for that game, in which case the opponent will then become black. This request must be made before the game starts.
Each player will have a reserve time of 5 months, and nothing else, for each game. All games will be started at the same time, hopefully the next Tuesday Feb 1st.
The players signed up are:
1)Fergus with Storm the Ivory Tower (Version 3)
2)Greg with Cataclysm.
3)Nicholas with Wildest Kingdom Chess.
4)Joe with Chieftain Chess.
5)Charles Daniel with King to Bunker Leap (Shuffle System).
6)Carlos with Coherent Chess.
Please let me know if you have any doubt.
Several months ago I got an account at Facebook but immediately regretted and never edited my profile. So I am not a member there. I express my most sincere apologies to the persons that have tried to be my friends by means Facebook. Be sure that I am friend of you all here by means this wonderful website!
Charles: Thanks for participating. The idea is that each person brings only one game. Joe: I hope you help me at this point for clarifying the things in benefit of Charles Daniel. Thanks!
Nicholas: OK. The porcupine icon is beautiful! I already could access the rules. All is right. The scheduled date for beginning the tourney is February 1, but after Greg's desires, perhaps we will need to postpone it a while, since... who will make the icons he likes? How much time it will be required? By the way, I'm nothing obsessed with this issue and I'm willing to abort it at any time.
I understand that Antoine Fourriere is who have been doing such a kind of things.
David Paulowich: How are you? I have been thinking that with the relaxed time control of 5 months per player perhaps you could participate in this. You have a lot of very interesting games and it would be fantastic to see you here joining us and bringing (say) Rose Chess XII!
Joe: I think we all have already gotten an agreement. There are five persons interested in this tourney each one bringin thus:
1)Fergus: Storm the Ivory Tower (Version 3),
2)Greg: Cataclysm,
3)Nicholas: Smess,
4)Joe: Chieftain Chess,
5)Carlos: Coherent Chess.
Nicholas: Please feel free to change your choice by any other variant you like; for instance, Dimension X, Holy Grail or Wild Kingdom Chess.
Joe: Please don't worry by the time. I'm quite pleased by viewing you full occupied in business and similar things. Don't forget to send me the rules of 'Merchant Princes and Space Pirates'. I'm very interested in pirate you this game and to sell it here in Mexico!!! :)))) I insist in to run the original format of this tourney. I'm not against to change it. But, if Nicholas and I are the only guys interested in it, I would suggest to close this item/topic and to open another new one (perhaps) called 'Potluck Only4Vegetarians'. Enjoy!
Joe: What is your position regarding the issue that Fergus and Greg have been raising? The mine is that we should follow with our original idea. I see this type of tourneys like a forum where certain kind of inventors could show theirs exotic variants, those that nobody or few people would want to play. I agree at all with Nicholas, save in one point: 'a tournament with 4 players sometimes doesn't provide enough'. Given the unpopular stuff we are trying, a tournament with 4 players is a resounding success!
Hi Greg, pleased to meet you and welcome back! What would be the game you bring? George: I like your idea of '...separate tournaments, whenever they start, to some space where non-participants can follow them,...'. Of course, this is something that only Fergus and maybe David Howe can make. But first we need to get an agreement on the kind of tournament we will play. By the way, I would be very happy if you would participate in it! Talking about democracy and justice, I think the method that Joe and I are proposing is quite democratic because we are giving to the people practically ABSOLUTE liberty to make theirs choice; it's understandable that each one will choose his/her favorite game. The fair here consists in the principle 'give for receiving': to I receive/get the pleasure of playing my favorite game I have to give to my adversary the pleasure of playing his favorite game. Naturally, it is perfectly possible to run several tourneys of diverse kinds at the same time: by theme and even by any particular variant. For instance, I have in mind to run in a next future a mini tourney playing Seirawan Chess. Of course, only the fonds of this great variant will participate in it. What about to carry out at the same time both ideas: the original of Joe/I and that of Fergus/Mats? Let's pospone a while the issue about to vote if Chieftain is accepted or not.
Christine: Thanks for the clarification. That was EXACTLY what I meant to say. I always have believed that women can read the minds of men! I cannot enter in a detailed discussion about the perform of pawns in a game; only would like to say that the name of this tourney, Free4All (=Free For All), mean that everybody (inventor or user) may enter if the game chosen fulfil these three MINIMUM/FEW conditions: 1)must be playable, 2)have their rules posted online, and 3)have at least 1 complete game score available. The reserve time of 5 months per player is for that players that cannot are on line dayly also could participate. The flat time limit of 10 months is because Joe and I have in mind to run a tourney like this every year: from February 1 to November 30. We can devote December of each year to analyse our performance in the tourney, and January of each year to open the sign ups for the following tourney.
You are right, Fergus, the direct sense of the question is that, but I swear my intention was not that. It's hard to explain the case. I only can say I'm sorry, my mind is confused enough by thinking between Spanish and English. I'm happy with your participation. Without you this tourney would be a resounding failure. Extra Move Chess is an excellent choice. By my part it is accepted. Nicholas: I'm also very happy with your participation. If Joe has no objection, Smess also is accepted. Thanks and enjoy! Chieftain Chess... Wow! I will have to review my library on openning theory of this game! OK. We already are 4 contenders. Anyone else?
I hope that AT LEAST the following players sign up: Fergus, Jose, Vitya, Nick (Wolff), Armin, Mats, Joe and I. Hopefully also Christine Bagley-Jones could participate.
Then, formally judges for this tournament are expecting that those interested let us know which game bring each one. The date scheduled for beginnig it is February 1.
I bring Coherent Chess.
Fergus: What do you think about running a tourney like this? I think Game Courier should have an annual potluck tournament.
Yáng Qí. Yankee ingenuity adds new power to Chinese Chess. (9x10, Cells: 90) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Game Courier Logs. View the logs of games played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Game Courier Tournament #4: An Introductory Semi-Potluck. A tournament to feature games good for introducing people to Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thank you very much, Joe. Of course, I did not win the tourney... my opponents gave me it! I lost the count of how many gross blunders they made. The quality of the games I played is... POOR. They can be deleted and nothing would happen. They do not exist. About playability, the six chessvariants chosen are quite playable and enjoyable.
There is no queen, but 2 compounds. Missing description (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Preset's URL:/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DThere+is+no+queen+but+two+compounds+-+Ajax+variation%26settings%3D9x8reversed
Definitevely, I would rather to play on a 9x8 board.
Preset's URL starting out from a reversed symmetric setup:
/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DThere+is+no+queen+but+two+compounds%26settings%3D9x8reversed
Preset's URL: /play/pbm/play.php?game%3DThere+is+no+queen+but+two+compounds%26settings%3D9x8
Please let me know if you would like to try it.
Game Courier Tournament #4: An Introductory Semi-Potluck. A tournament to feature games good for introducing people to Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]| Rank | Player | Wins | Ties | Losses | In Progress | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carlos Cetina | 14 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 15.5 |
| 2 | Armin Liebhart | 11 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 11.5 |
| 3 | José Carrillo | 10 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 11 |
| 4 | Vitya Makov | 10 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 10 |
| 4 | Fergus Duniho | 10 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 10 |
| 6 | Thomas McElmurry | 7 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8.5 |
| 7 | Je Ju | 3 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 3 |
| 8 | Joe Joyce | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2.5 |
| 9 | Nicholas Wolff | 2 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 2 |
| 10 | Sam Trenholme | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
1)José defeats Thomas in an Hypermodern Shatranj game.
2)Fergus defeats Je Ju in a Circular Chess game.
Since the tournament is finishing the results of the games played by Joe Joyce and Sam Trenholme are also added:
Joe 1-0 Nicholas
Joe 0-1 José
Joe 0-1 Fergus
Thomas 0.5-0.5 Joe
Joe 0-1 Vitya
Je Ju 0-1 Joe
Vitya 1-0 Sam
Sam 1-0 Je Ju
Sam 0-1 Carlos
Fergus 1-0 Sam
Sam 0-1 Thomas
Nicholas 1-0 Sam
| Rank | Player | Wins | Ties | Losses | In Progress | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carlos Cetina | 14 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 15.5 |
| 2 | Armin Liebhart | 11 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 11.5 |
| 3 | Vitya Makov | 10 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 10 |
| 3 | José Carrillo | 9 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 10 |
| 5 | Fergus Duniho | 9 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 9 |
| 6 | Thomas McElmurry | 7 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 8.5 |
| 7 | Je Ju | 3 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 3 |
| 8 | Nicholas Wolff | 2 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 2 |
1)Carlos defeats José in an Euchess game.
2)Thomas defeats Armin in an Hypermodern Shatranj game.
3)Carlos defeats Thomas in a Modern Carrera's Chess game.
4)José defeats Thomas in a Circular Chess game.
| Rank | Player | Wins | Ties | Losses | In Progress | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carlos Cetina | 12 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 13.5 |
| 2 | Armin Liebhart | 11 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 11.5 |
| 3 | Vitya Makov | 10 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 10 |
| 4 | Fergus Duniho | 9 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 9 |
| 4 | José Carrillo | 8 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 9 |
| 6 | Thomas McElmurry | 6 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 7.5 |
| 7 | Je Ju | 3 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 3 |
| 8 | Nicholas Wolff | 2 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 2 |
1)Armin defeats Vitya in an Hypermodern Shatranj game.
2)Armin defeats Fergus in an Euchess game.
3)Thomas defeats Je Ju in an Euchess game.
4)Carlos defeats Fergus in an Hypermodern Shatranj game.
5)Armin defeats Thomas in an Ajax Orthodox Chess game.
| Rank | Player | Wins | Ties | Losses | In Progress | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carlos Cetina | 11 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 12.5 |
| 2 | Vitya Makov | 10 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| 3 | Fergus Duniho | 9 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 9 |
| 3 | José Carrillo | 8 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 9 |
| 5 | Armin Liebhart | 8 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 8.5 |
| 6 | Thomas McElmurry | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6.5 |
| 7 | Je Ju | 3 | 0 | 13 | 2 | 3 |
| 8 | Nicholas Wolff | 2 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 2 |
1)Je Ju defeats Nicholas in an Hypermodern Shatranj game.
2)Je Ju defeats Nicholas in a Modern Carrera's Chess game.
3)José defeats Vitya in an Ajax Orthodox Chess game.
4)Armin defeats Nicholas in a Circular Chess game.
| Rank | Player | Wins | Ties | Losses | In Progress | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carlos Cetina | 11 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 12.5 |
| 2 | Vitya Makov | 10 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 10 |
| 3 | Fergus Duniho | 9 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 9 |
| 4 | Jose Carrillo | 7 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 8 |
| 5 | Armin Liebhart | 7 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 7.5 |
| 6 | Thomas McElmurry | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6.5 |
| 7 | Nicholas Wolff | 2 | 0 | 13 | 3 | 2 |
| 8 | Je Ju | 1 | 0 | 13 | 4 | 1 |
1)Fergus defeats Vitya in a Modern Carrera's Chess game.
2)Fergus defeats Je Ju in an Ajax Orthodox Chess game.
| Rank | Player | Wins | Ties | Losses | In Progress | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carlos Cetina | 11 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 12.5 |
| 2 | Vitya Makov | 10 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 10 |
| 3 | Jose Carrillo | 7 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 8 |
| 4 | Armin Liebhart | 7 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 7.5 |
| 5 | Fergus Duniho | 7 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 6 | Thomas McElmurry | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6.5 |
| 7 | Nicholas Wolff | 2 | 0 | 13 | 3 | 2 |
| 8 | Je Ju | 1 | 0 | 12 | 5 | 1 |
| Rank | Player | Wins | Ties | Losses | In Progress | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carlos Cetina | 11 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 12.5 |
| 2 | Vitya Makov | 10 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 10 |
| 3 | Jose Carrillo | 7 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 8 |
| 4 | Armin Liebhart | 7 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 7.5 |
| 5 | Thomas McElmurry | 5 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 6.5 |
| 6 | Fergus Duniho | 6 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
| 7 | Nicholas Wolff | 2 | 0 | 13 | 3 | 2 |
| 8 | Je Ju | 1 | 0 | 12 | 5 | 1 |
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
In case you and Cameron want to continue the out-timed game, here is the special preset.
I will email you to define details on next tournaments.
Given that we have not heard anything from Joe, I express my deepest desire that he be in good health.