[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by FergusDuniho
There will continue to be some delays in getting the entries up, but I expect to be able to have everything up by next week. When I ran last year's contest, hardly anything in my life changed during the whole year. The biggest thing was finishing my Ph.D., but I remained in the same place and continued my graduate student lifestyle. This year, everything has changed, and this has created several distractions and obstacles to keep from working on this contest as much as I worked on the last one. In early April, I accepted a job offer to teach at SUNY Plattsburgh, and a couple days later, my father died. Between grieving for my father, going to his memorial service, and choosing textbooks for my courses, I had no time for this contest. During the middle of May from I moved from Rochester to Plattsburgh, into an apartment above my mother's bookstore. To save money, I have been borrowing a phone line from her store to get on-line, but it is available to me only when the store is closed. On top of that, I have been working for her in her record store across the street. So my mornings are busy getting ready for work, my days are spent working, I'm sometimes tired when I finish work, and I'm even more tired when I can finally get on-line at 9:00 PM. Besides all this, I learned of a radio program called Coast-to-Coast AM, a.k.a. the Art Bell show, and I have been listening to this regularly. It airs for 4 hours 7 nights a week, and I record it each night on my VCR. Trying to keep up with this show takes up a lot of my time. This weekend, I will be moving again. My mother wants to rent the apartment I'm in now to 3 college students, and I will be moving across the street. As far as this contest goes, the significant thing about this move is that I will have to get my own phone, because I will no longer be able to borrow a line from my mother's store. Once I have my own phone, I will be able to get on-line at more reasonable hours, and I will more easily be able to get the entries up.
I started moving later than I expected I would, because of delays in the refurbishing of my new apartment. In the meantime, my nephew, Christopher Turner Duniho, was born August 2nd. This kept me preoccupied during the delay. Shortly after that, I began moving stuff into my new apartment while work was still being done on refurbishing it. It is now almost completely refurbished, and I expect to set up my computer desk and move over my computer soon. If there are no more delays in refurbishing the apartment, I should be doing that this evening. I hope to get all the entries up this week after I have my computer up in my new apartment.
David has been emailing me at my ZZN email account, and ZZN recently stopped POP3 use for free email accounts. So the email he was sending me was not being downloaded with Eudora. I finally read and replied to some of it tonight when I logged into this email account on the web.
I have recently received some emails on the possibility of implementing Bughouse for Zillions of Games. Let me say here that this is impossible. The asynchronous nature of Bughouse makes it impossible to implement Bughouse for Zillions of Games. In order to accomodate Bughouse, Zillions of Games would have to be updated to allow asynchronous communication between two separately running games. At present, it does not allow any communication between separately running games, whether synchronous or asynchronous. However, the synchronous version of Bughouse, the one that can be played by email, has been implemented by Karl Scherer as Transfer Chess. It can be found at this URL: http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/transferchess.html
I have now updated it. The update includes motif, abstract, and alfaerie piece sets.
It looks very good. I do have one suggestion for improvement. Although single tiles are tops in versatility, they do take more time to set up. My suggestion is to sew single tiles onto larger surfaces to make tiles of various dimensions, particularly 1x2, 2x2, 2x4, and 4x4. I have recently seen television commercials for small sewing machines, such as Sewsmart and the Handy Stich, which are supposed to make some sewing jobs easier. And they're cheap too. I've found the Handy Stich selling as low as $9.99. By matching thread color with tile color, you would still have solid color squares.
I generally approve of the method of judging Hans has suggested, but I'm concerned that it's not fair in the details. Suppose that the five best games all fall within one grouping of eleven games. Although these would be the games most deserving of first through fifth place, only three of them would make it. My recommendation is that the judges of each group select the five best games in their group. I also recommend three rounds. In the second round, each group of judges would evaluate the ten games chosen by the other two groups. Judges whose games were picked would drop out of this round. Other judges could step in as need be. Each group would rank the top five games, and the five or so games with the best rankings would become the finalists for the last round. In case of ties for fifth place, there could be more than five finalists, or another judge could break the tie. In the final round, any of the judges without games competing in the final round could help decide the final ranking of first through fifth place. This could include first-round judges who had to drop out of the second round.
I agree with David Short's suggestions. It would be best to split games by the same person into two different groups. This will better allow each game to be judged on its own merits. Besides the scenarios he mentions, another is that a judge, in an attempt to be fair to all contestants, will let himself favor only one game by the same person, even though both may be deserving of ranking among the highest. Suppose that one author has two games that are really better than the others. If all the judges like these two games more than the others, but out of a sense of fairness let themselves favor only one or the other, they could be split on which one they favor. This could then result in neither game by that person placing among the highest ranked games. I'm willing to judge. I may find time to playtest the games in a group during the winter break. I probably don't have time for email games that could carry into the next semester, but I should be able to find time to play against Zillions.
I've had an additional thought on how to select the initial three groups of games and the judges for them. I know some of the games are by veterans of past contests here, and I assume without checking that several are by newcomers. I suggest that, insofar as it is feasible, games by newcomers and veterans should be segregated from each other. Veterans should judge games by newcomers, and newcomers should judge games by veterans. This will help eliminate any bias that veterans have toward games by people whose other games are known to them. I expect that complete segregation will not be feasible, especially if both veterans and newcomers have submitted two entries. But if we get a good number of newcomers to act as judges, it may be feasible to have most or all of the veteran judges initially judge between games that are only by newcomers. Whether newcomers judge games by veterans or newcomers is really unimportant, since they may be equally unfamiliar with games by both. But if the veterans were to focus on games by newcomers during the first round of judging, this would help eliminate the effect of bias in the judging.
By veteran, I meant anyone who has entered a previous Chess variant contest at this site. By newcomer, I meant anyone for whom this is their first time entering a Chess variant contest at this site. Using Glen Overby's figures, I estimate that there are 13 veterans and 11 newcomers. I do not at all understand John Lawson's objections to segrating games by veterans and newcomers. I do not understand how he thinks results would be skewed. My main concern is that judges avoid, as far as they can, judging games by people whose games they're already familiar with. Of course, this is feasible only if a good number of the judges are new enough to be unfamiliar with previous games by those who have already entered contests. Assuming we have that, I propose that 11 newcomer games be put into one group, and the rest be split into the other groups. Those judges who already have favorite or least favorite games by veteran contestants can then judge the group of games entirely by newcomers.
Here's a way to do it with a bit less overhead. Have two Bishop pieces and call one an unmoved_Bishop. When the unmoved Bishop moves, change it to an ordinary Bishop, and create another piece on its old space.
There is a contradiction in the description of how the Jack moves. Here is what it says: 'It moves (and captures) from its eye, as a Wazir if the Kings are on squares of the same color, and as a Firz otherwise, that is, the Jack is colorbound, like the reflecting Wazir, as long as both Kings are on squares of the same color.' First, this is saying that a Jack moves as a Wazir if the two Kings are on the same color. Since a Wazir moves one space orthogonally, this means that a Jack is not colorbound when two Kings are on the same color. Rather, it is colorbound only when the Kings are not on the same color, for then it moves as the colorbound Firz. Yet it goes on to say that the Jack is colorbound when the two Kings are on the same color. Please clarify the rules on how the Jack moves.
The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary agrees with you, but Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) offers Marshall as a variant spelling. Based on sources available on the web, both Christian Freeling and Jose Raul Capablanca have used the double-l spelling of Marshall. This spelling is used on Freeling's own mindsports.net website, and it is used in a quotation from Capablanca provided on the page http://www.chessvariants.com/programs.dir/capaprogdesc.html I believe there is no general consensus on the name of this piece. My own preference is for Marshall over Chancellor, and I disfavor calling it the Chancellor. First of all, Capablanca's original name for the piece was Marshall. Second, Capablanca created confusion around the name Chancellor by using it for each of the two extra pieces in his Chess variant. In 1929, he used this name for the piece he later called the Archbishop. Third, the word Marshall has its etymological roots in a word for horse. The word is marah, which is etymologically related to our word mare. In its original uses, a Marshall was someone who worked with horses. This is suitable for a piece that gains the leaping powers of the Knight, a piece that was originally known as a horse. But the word Chancellor comes from a Latin word for doorkeeper, which has nothing to do with horses. Also, the name Chancellor has been more widely used for different pieces, whereas the name Marshall has more consistently been used for this piece. Besides the Bishop-Knight piece, which was once called a Chancellor by Capablanca, the game King's Court uses the name Chancellor for a very different piece.
Instead of clearing things up for me, your response to my question has just confused things further. I have no idea how a Jack moves, and I need clear and detailed explanations. I don't know what a mirror Wazir or a mirror Firz is. I don't know what eyes and symmetrical squares are and how this relates to how this piece moves. When I recently played a game against Zillions, my Jacks could never even move, and I had no clue what to do with them.
While I might still try a four-color board, I have two reasons against using one. First, I already tried a four-color board when I created Cavalier Chess, and it was confusing to look at. Second, I wanted to use the colors of the British flag for the board, and it has three colors. I may still try a four-color board, because I've come up with the idea that the Dragons are elemental creatures who each move through one element. I could justify green as a fourth color, representing Northern Ireland and the element earth. Red would be fire, white air, and blue water. I think two Dragons per side are enough. I have deduced that a Queen with any two minor pieces can checkmate a lone Queen, and this includes two Dragons.
I just found the old coat of arms for Northern Ireland, and it shows a Lion and a Stag. I might think about adding a Stag to represent Northern Ireland. I found the picture at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1648/tuaidh_e.htm
The important thing about this hobbled Queen is that it is a major piece. That makes it more valuable than minor pieces like the Bishop and Knight. I do not believe that Zillions checks whether a piece is major or minor in its piece value calculations. I believe it focuses on how many spaces a piece can move to. Here's an experiement. Create a piece that can teleport to any empty space, but which has no other power of moving. I bet Zillions will think it is very valuable -- even though it can never check the King.
Playing against myself, I successfully forced a checkmate against a lone Queen with a Queen and two Dragons in 47 moves. To show that a Queen and two Dragons could force mate on a Queen, I played Black with full knowledge of my strategy, resisting it at every move. I might be able to force mate in fewer moves if I tried it again, as I was trying to figure out what to do while doing it. The trick is to force the lone Queen to move to the one part of the board where the two Dragons can work together to checkmate it. I started with the Black Queen on its initial rank, where the White Queen and Dragons could not touch it. But they could inch closer to it until it had nowhere to go except off its initial rank. To do this, the White Queen moved to the seventh rank, inched closer to the Black Queen, forcing it to the side, then a Dragon blocked the White Queen's line of attack on part of the seventh rank to give the Black Queen a space to move to. The White Queen could then occupy the last rank, keeping the Black Queen from returning there. The next part was to force the Black Queen down to White's initial rank. This was mainly done with the Queen, with Dragons moving mainly to avoid stalemate situations. Once the Black Queen reached White's first rank, the White Queen stood guard on the second rank to keep the Queen on the first rank. The Dragons then moved down for check and checkmate. If a Dragon was captured and returned through promotion, the place on the board where the Dragons can work together would be different, but the principles behind the forced mate would still be the same.
I might add a Stag to a future variant of British Chess, but I like the game as it is right now, and I have no Stag piece image anyway. I read on an Irish heraldry site that the stag is a peaceful animal that attacks only when provoked. So I thought of letting the Stag piece move as a leaper (maybe a Knight or an Alibaba) without capturing, or as a Queen (or maybe a hobbled Queen) when capturing, with the restriction that it can capture a piece only when it is attacked from the direction that the piece is in. This will usually mean that a Stag can't capture a piece unless it is attacked by it. But it will also be able to capture a piece that stands between it and an attacking Dragon. The idea is that the Stag is normally romping about in a peaceful way, but when it's provoked, it will charge at a piece with its full head of horns. The idea behind having it capture only as a hobbled Queen is that it needs a running start to ram an attacker. This would also allow the Queen to get close to a Stag. I think I could implement this piece in Zillions by using move-types to distinguish between attacks from different directions.
A hyped up commercial variant that doesn't even offer a single fairy piece. If it's true that 'THIS IS THE ONLY CHESS GAME PATENTED IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA THAT WAS DEVELOPED TO IMPROVE YOUR EXISTING CHESS SKILLS!', it's probably because Gothic Chess was patented only in the United States, and most variants have not been patented at all. After all, just about any Chess variant can help you improve your Chess skills.
I don't think it is desirable or feasible to enforce standardized names. I believe it's best to respect the autonomy of individual game creators, allowing them to choose whatever names they prefer. But I also believe that game creators are best served by knowing the history of the pieces, so that they can make informed decisions about what to name a piece. I also believe it is good to provide reasons for and against certain names, allowing the game creator the freedom to judge whether or not the reasons are good ones. This allows game creators to freely make informed decisions, which is what's best. As it happens, this piece and the Bishop-Knight piece are probably the two pieces with the longest list of different piece names. This is because they are the most popular fairy pieces, but they have never been standard pieces. The standard pieces and the little-used pieces are generally known by fewer names, and it is easier to settle on common names for them. But these two pieces have been used in several unrelated games, possibly reinvented several times, and they have acquired a longer list of names.
I just corrected a mistake I made when I wrote this page two days ago. Capablanca did not introduce the name Cardinal. He introduced the name Chancellor. This was an error of confusion, not ignorance, on my part. The confusion stems from the fact that when Capablanca used the name of Chancellor for this piece, he called the Rook-Knight a Marshall, which is the same name Freeling uses in Grand Chess. And both Chancellor and Cardinal begin with the letter C. So I let myself get confused into thinking that Capablanca had used the same names as Freeling later used. But he did not use both names. He used only one of the names, namely Marshall.
I was looking over the funny notation page a while ago, and it seems to lack punctuation and operators. I imagine a better system could be made if it made use of punctuation and operators. Here are some initial suggestions. I'm sure it could be developed better than this. ? move continues if piece is not over occupied space & move continues regardless of what's on current space + piece completes left move and continues with right move | means makes one move or other * means indefinite repetition of last move -- unless otherwise specified, * means ?* ! means move end with capture . means move must end on empty space [] means move cannot be made unless whole move is made () used as punctuation marks [W&F] = Knight W|F = Man [W?F] = Mao W* = Rook F* = Bishop W*|F* = Queen (W!|F!)|(D|A) = Murray Lion ((D|A)|(W|F))|((W|F)+(W|F)) = Chu Shogi Lion
As someone who has taught symbolic logic, I find it far less opaque than Betza's funny notation. Operators and puncuation make things clearer. I spent this afternoon devising a new notation. I'll post the examples of the notatation here, and I'll post a tutorial on it later. See if you can figure things out without the legend at the end. Wazir: O Ferz: D Alfil: DF Dabbaba: OF Knight: OFT Camel: OFFT or OTFF Zebra: OFTFF or OFFTF Giraffe: OFFFT or OTFFF Chinese Knight: OeFT Rook: O* Bishop: D* Queen: O*|D* Nightrider: (OFT)* Alfilrider: (DD)* Dabbabarider: (OO)* Marshall: O*|OFT Paladin: D*|OFT Grasshopper: (O|D)*pF Korean Cannon: O*pF* Chinese Cannon: O*e|O*pF*o Vao: D*e|D*pF*o Leo: ((O|D)*e)|((O|D)*pF*o) Chinese Elephant: DeF Nightriderhopper: (OFT)*p? Long Leaper: ((O|D)!)*e Withdrawer: ((O|D)!)BF*e In case it helps, here is a brief legend of symbols used in these examples. | = disjunction operator, separating options O = disjunction of all orthogonal directions D = disjunction of all diagonal directions F = relative forward direction T = (L|R) L = relative left direction R = relative right direction B = relative backward direction ? = optional, conditional repetition of last move * = infinite ?s e = continue move only if space is empty o = continue move only if opponent on space p = continue move only if piece on space ! = capture piece here () = punctuation
Let's see what I can do about the Rhino. Single-step Rhino: O?T Sliding Rhino: (O?T)* Mirror Rhino: D?T Sliding Mirror Rhino: (D?T)* Double Rhino: ((O|D)?T)* Monster: ((O|D)?T)*|(O|D)* The ? works differently than F. While F unconditionally and non-optionally moves in the last direction moved, ? adds an optional continuation of the whole move that repeats the last move made, and, by default, it adds it only when the current space is empty. For example, O??? describes the movement of a Short Rook, one which can move no further than four spaces. It is the equivalent of (O|OeF|OeFeF|OeFeFeF). In contrast, OFFF describes a piece that leaps four spaces in any orthogonal direction. Let me add some comments on the system I have designed. I call it Piece Code, and its purpose is twofold. One is to provide a clear and concise way to express how a piece moves to a human reader. The other is to serve as a macro programming language for describing piece moves in short strings, which may eventually be incorporated into the PBM to check the legality of moves. Unlike Betza's funny notation, it does not share the purpose of serving as notation for identifying pieces.
When I first described Piece Code here, I gave a brief legend only for the symbols actually used in the examples, but several of these symbols were macros for code you didn't see. Absolute directions have been defined as hexadecimal digits between 1 and C, as per the clockface model. But this does not work so well for a square board. So I think I will use a numeric keypad model for square boards. There is a relative direction for every absolute direction. It is presently identified by prepending an absolute direction with the / operator. F, L, R, and B are aliases for four of these. I plan to add P and S for port and starboard directions. On a square board, these would default to the two forward diagonal directions. Y could be used for (P|S), and a Mao's movement could be represented as OeY. A Knight might be described as moving OY. A Holywar Squire would be OeY|DeY or (O|D)eY. I'm also planning on adding symbols for rotation without moving. I may use lowercase d and w for deasil and widdershins, which mean clockwise and counterclockwise but start with different letters. Each of these would rotate a piece's orientation to the next axis. This would be 45 degree turn on a square board, a 30 degree turn on a hex board. The letter u could be used for a U-turn, i.e. rotating 180 degrees. Rotation would change a piece's relative directions without moving it. This would give another way to do a Mao move: Oe(w|d)F. Using lowercase y to represent (w|d), a Mao's move could be expressed as OeyF, moving one space orthogonally, then if the space is empty, rotating one turn deasil or widdershins to one of the forward diagonal directions, then moving forward.
Regarding the Herald's move, I have not yet added anything for taking into account the position of a piece. Given that I want Piece Code to define pieces in a board-independent way, and to be understandable both by humans and by software, there may not be a feasible way for it to handle how the Herald moves. I plan to eventually add strings of Piece Code to PBM piece sets, and these are intended to be used with any board someone gives FEN code for. If I tried to define a piece in terms of a particular board, it may break down on another board. Instead of trying to make it do everything, I'll accept some limitations in Piece Code and use it mainly for generating warning messages that a given move may be illegal. I may take the earlier suggestion of using some symbol that indicates that the code only partially describes how a piece moves.
In my game Holywar, the Mao+Moa was called a Squire, because it was like a Knight but weaker.
Sam wrote: 'The beuity with Chinese chess is that you can move any piece at the beginning of the game, giving the game many more posiblitys in the game.' While it is true that any piece can move at the beginning of Chinese Chess, it is also true that any piece may move at the beginning of Yang Qi. If you consider more opening moves a reason for favoring a game, consider that Yang Qi has 55 possible opening moves, while Chinese Chess has only 44.
Hans,
What is your source for saying that the Leo 'was invented in 1936 by Dr. P. Seyfert'? The only source I have on the subject, Dickins' A Guide to Fairy Chess, says of the Leo, Vao, and Pao, 'They were introduced by T. R. Dawson from Chinese Chess, probably before 1914' (11).
Switching the place of an Arrow and a Sage is not a bad idea. Although it was a design goal to mirror the setup of Chinese Chess as much as possible, changing the setup may have some advantages in terms of game play. Because the setup is symmetrical, its 55 possible opening moves are equivalent to 28 opening moves. Likewise, the 44 opening moves in Chinese Chess are equivalent to 23 opening moves, which is not that far off from the 20 available in Chess. By making the setup asymmtrical, as it is in Chess, all 55 possible opening moves would be distinct from each other. I'll put some variant setups in an updated ZRF.
When I calculated the number of opening moves in Yang Qi, I omitted the King's two swapping moves. So there are 57 possible opening moves.
I think you counted four extra double moves for the forward Pawns. Only the rear Pawns have double moves. There are only 57 possible opening moves.
The three personality types in the Enneagram's competency triad are distinguished by how they relate to rules, and this bears on how members of these three types approach Chess variants. The three types in this triad are One, Three, and Five. Type One likes to obey rules. Type Three likes to master rules. And type Five likes to play with rules. While Ones like to obey rules, they sometimes feel dissatisfied with the rules, seeking to reform them or supplant them. Enneagram author Don Riso calls type One the Reformer. When a One is interested in creating Chess variants, it is usually out of a feeling of dissatisfiaction with Chess and other variants. A One typically seeks to create the perfect variant, and he may devote his efforts to perfecting one variant rather than to creating several variants. Unlike Ones, Threes aren't driven to create the perfect game. A Three is more likely to be driven to be good at a game. I expect that several of the most accomplished players are Threes. Threes generally don't have any inner drive to create new variants, but if a Three perceives a market for a new variant, he may create one, then invest his time and money into promoting it and marketing it. Threes are driven mainly by a desire for success, and for some Threes promoting a new Chess variant may be a means to success. Fives like to play and tinker with rules. When a Five is interested in Chess variants, he generally likes to play with Chess like it's a box of Legos or Tinker Toys, mixing and matching various rules, pieces, and boards to try out various possibilities. While Fives may employ standards in creating their games, they generally regard the perfect variant as a myth. For them, creating variants is more like playing with a kaleidescope than it is about seeking perfection. Although Fives may like to see their games manufactured, they generally lack a marketing orientation, and they are usually too busy working on their next variant to spend much time promoting their last one. Fives tend to create several more variants than other types do. There are six other Enneagram types, but the other six are probably less interested in creating Chess variants. This doesn't rule out the possibility that some variants have been created by other types, but it may be rare.
I remember Shako from the large variant contest. I discovered this site shortly before that contest ended, and I voted for Shako. I'm less familiar with Giga Chess. You may be pleased to know that I considered the name of Crossbow for the Vao, and I even created a Chinese piece for it before settling on the name of Arrow. You can see it at http://www.chessvariants.com/graphics.dir/big5/index.html
Regarding what Ralph and Tony might be, I would look more at why they create variants than at how well they play Chess. Although Threes are more competitive than Fives, I think Fives have more natural aptitude at Chess-like games. I think Chess appeals mainly to people in the intellectual triad (567) and to people in the competency triad (135). Type Five is the only type in both triads, which probably gives Fives more of an interest and more of a natural aptitude at such games. Also, when I spoke of best players, I meant people like Bobby Fischer, who played Chess very competitively. I'm sure many Fives play Chess very well, and I know that Fives can be competitive, since I am a Five and frequently enjoy competition. Regarding competition, I think one difference between Threes and Fives is that Threes put more of a premium on winning, while Fives enjoy the challenge of competition without worrying as much about winning or losing. Concerning why Threes and Fives create Chess variants, I have more thoughts on the matter. Besides creating variants for viable markets, Threes may create variants for the sake of competition. I suspect that the competitions at this site prompt some Threes to create Chess variants. While Fives, such as myself, also enjoy competing in these contests, I think one sign of being a Five is that someone frequently creates variants without entering them into contests. Getting back to Ralph and Tony, I'm fairly certain that Ralph is a Five. Tony might also be a Five, but I have less evidence to go on. Ralph clearly loves to play with rules. He has created several variants without any hope of marketing them or entering them in competitions. He seems to create Chess variants for the fun of it rather than for any extrinsic purpose. Also, his funny notation is the sort of thing that I expect only a Five would create.
As good a place to start as any is my own page on the Enneagram at http://www.duniho.com/fergus/enneagram It includes links to several of the main Enneagram websites.
Some attention should be drawn to the fact that the 'Handmade Magnetic Chinese Chess Set' is especially relevant to this book. The board and piece images used to make this set were from H. T. Lau's book.
39 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.