Comments by GaryK.Gifford

Carlos and David -  many thanks.  g

P.S. My Google search for 'online chess' showed 3,180,000 results.

You ask, 'Am I right in understanding the mace this way: I move my mace next to enemy pieces. Then on same turn I can take them off the board?

Yes. One of the adjacent pieces, your choice as to which one. Then, on the next turn, you could for example, move your King, but the Mace still gets to remove an adjacent piece. The Mace need not move... its weapon is essentially striking adjacent enemy pieces (one per turn, if possible). Of course, you can move it or toss it with a Horse-apult... or use the Horse-apult to toss an enemy piece over to a Mace.

Also, is it compulsory to remove all pieces attacked by mace?

Yes. But only one gets removed per turn. (one per Mace, that is) And if mace removes piece/pawn that exposes king to check then does that not mean that the opponent can then capture your king?

No - because the Mace capture (assuming he does not move) is free... so, you could move your King out of the way before or after the exposing... or block the exposing. I can add some examples, perhaps tomorrow. I was wondering too what do you think of adding one mace and one Horse-apult to my customizable game : pick piece big chess. I think it will be a bit slower than yours but it might be quite interesting.

That is fine if you give reference to 'Maces and Horse-apults.' If you dont mind - I can add that into the presets for my game.

Yes, that is fine. Best regards, Gary

I do have some simple requests in regard to your interesting Maces and Horse-apults piece set:

a) Please call the Maces in your preset Alfil-Maces or Elephant-Maces. Because they have that added movement and the new name would make that more clear.

b) Please call the Horse-apults in your preset Dabbabah Horse-apults or War Machine Horse-apults. Because of their added movement. Also, in your rules you need to mention that Horse-apults capture 'adjacent pieces by displacement' (as does a King.)

In time I would hope to see new graphic pieces for the Alfil-Mace and the Dabbabah Horse-apult. The new graphics would be a Elephant/Mace combo image and a Dabbabah/Horse-apult combo image.

With the new images we could have games with standard Maces and Horse-apults; and Alfil-Maces and Dabbabah Horse-apults on the same board.

In closing, congratulations on creating the 'Pick the Piece Big Chess.' I look forward to watching some of these in action.

http://www.seirawanchess.com/

The new plastic pieces (Hawk and Elephant) look very nice. But, I would have preferred that these pieces kept their earlier names (as we see in Capablanca and Gothic Chess and many other variants) and that they kept logical designs which reflect their piece movement, as in Gothic Chess pieces. When I see an Elephant I think of the one from Shatranj, or even the modern Elephant... but certainly not a Bishop-Knight. Seeing an Elephant move like a Bishop or Knight seems terrible to me.

Gating - 1. v. A specialized version of a drop, where a piece or pawn [in reserve, i.e., a pocket piece] is dropped onto a vacant square as designated by the rules for that specific game. A gated piece, for example, could possibly enter a game by one or more of the following methods as designated by the rules: (a) the starting space of a piece or pawn that just moved; (b) a space which was just vacated by a pawn or piece (not necessarily the starting space), (c) a vacant space which is under the influence of a pawn or piece (a projected gated piece); (d) dropped onto a designated vacant space, or one space of a set of spaces (as with a Shogi drop). (e) use another method, such as the roll of dice to introduce a piece. Typically only one of these methods would be expected to exist in a given game which deploys gating. Note that gating is often a two-piece move, akin to castling in standard Fide chess.

When citing a game, please include author and date invented. Many thanks for helping with this project, sincerely Gary

Actually, by using the Trojan Horse you could drop the Chancellor or ArchBishop or Amazon (etc)on a square other than the horse's initial starting point. You could also stipulate ... 'must be droped not passed the 4th rank,' or something like that if you wanted to avoid drops within the opponent's camp. The Trojan Horse method was introduce in my Catapults of Troy several years ago... I do not know if there are any earlier examples...

Many thanks Antoine for listing your games pertaining to gating and drops. 
They have been noted.  Best regards, Gary

There are many possibilities... but the idea of having lots of physical pieces to set up CVs seems fantastic to me. I look forward to the day when we could acquire USCF size Ferz, Wazir, Elephants, War Towers (Dabbadahs (sp?)) etc.

An IAGO system 10x10 board and piece set is also something that I look forward to seeing.

The reason I think that is bad is that the person might have two very bad games. He can submit his least dreadful game first, if it gets vetoed he can then submit his more dreadful game. If he is the only one that likes those games; well, it hardly seems to be a good thing.

Another reason is that a person might have a game that everyone thinks is fantastic. Then 1 player vetoes it... thus disappointing 7 players. Better I think, would be a veto of 4. A game is submitted, but it would take 4 players to reject it, not 1. If half the players don't like a game, then that seems to be good reason to offer a replacement.

Also, did you realize European Chess's Ottoman Empire (The Turks) army starts with what is essentially gating?

I think Juan's idea is fine and does not seem overly ambitious to me. We would just need to see if enough designers were interested and enough first-time designers were interested. If not, then the garage is an option.

In regard to defending your games... do they really need defended? Just list your critic's points, then use logic to tear them down. It should be a simple task. In event you cannot tear down a point, then (in that case) you would likely need to say, 'I think you are right about this aspect.'

I think it is best for a critic to play a game before attacking it... but there is a lot of the 'Green Eggs and Ham Syndrome' and they will be quick to say they do not like it without trying it. Perhaps some required reading is in order for all would-be game critics?

P.S. Another idea is to take a critic's points and apply them to one of his (or her own games)... the results can be interesting.

Anyway seeing that computers have solved a game (essentially a problem with 500 billion billion possible positions (5 x 1020); then I cannot help but wonder how many possible positions our various CVs have. With some of the very large games it must truly be a phenomenal number. Also, having large numbers of piece types... well, take Chess with Different Armies for example, the computers can have fun there. And Chu Shogi... wow!

In closing, the number for checkers is much higher than I would have expected.

(c) a vacant cell which is under the influence of a pawn or piece (a projected gated piece)

The Valkyrie moves as does a Queen, but can essentially capture one of its own pieces and then relocate that piece to any space that the Valkyrie had just traveled through. Of course, the relocated piece was already on the board... so this would not be conventional gating.

For me, personally, the number of games already here at ChessVariants is enough to last me past my lifetime. I see no need for infinite boards and infinite pieces.

Would not the CV Tournaments be considered such events? After all, they had lots of players, lots of games, and I think each started in one year and finished in the next. The first two even had cash prizes.

PotLuck seems more like 'Bring games you like and lets have a round robin.' Nothing wrong with that of course. And I applaud the concept and implementation. It is a great idea and I'd loved to have participated but I am currently a bit exhausted from CV3, playing in an ongoing Chess Thematic Tournament, and playing in a final round of a Shogi Tournament.

At any rate, I wish all participants the best in this PotLuck event and I will be watching from the side... with great curiosity as to the outcome.

If I had extra money I would gladly buy variant pieces simply to support the cause. But the wife doesn't work and there are 4 kids... lots of bills, high gas prices, etc. Still, if I saw an IAGO Game Pack in the store, I'd likely not be able to resist taking out the credit card and buying it... if reasonably priced. But then, it would likely sit next to my Shogi, Xianqi, Navia, and many other games, waiting for the day when an opponent would show up.

One can avoid draws in chess by playing against much stronger players. And if you do play a much stronger player and get a draw, chances are that you will be happy to have gotten it.

On a related note, I took another look at Navia Dratp recently. With its unbalance armies, and three ways to win it seems that draws are unlikely in that game. Even at the bare king level (Navias only) the two pieces would race towards the opposition's first rank and the one who won the race would win.

I think Chess is fine as is. If someone is disatisfied with it then there are certainly plenty of other variants to play. I still hope Navia Dratp will catch on someday. I think it is a fantastic variant and it should satisy the draw haters.

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.

Several of us at CV, myself included, came to believe that it was harder to
avoid a draw in Shatranj than it was to avoid a draw in chess due to that
lack of fire power.  I believe that was one of the reasons Joe Joyce
created Modern Shatranj with more fire power than the original, that is, so it would be less drawish.

There is no entry fee and the winner would receive a chess book and a certificate indicating they were the winner.

The game is very easy to play and plays rather fast due to the power of the Maces.

A minimum of 4 players is needed to run this event... which we hope to be round robin. The game pace will likely be 1 move/4 days to ensure timely completion. Vacation time will be taken into account.

If anyone is interested, please indicate in this thread by April 22. Thank you.

P.S. I will not be playing in this event.

I believe we can change the rules and come up with a truly fantastic variant (like Navia Dratp)... and yet still, it won't be popular (relatively) because it is 'intellectual' in spirit. That is why the late Donald Benge, creater of Conquest, advized me to never try to market a chess variant.

Such pawns are hazardous to Pawn Shields which are very important in FIDE type chess variants. They are also hazardous in regard to 'outposts' such as the famous 'Knight Outpost.' Perhaps that is why Navia Dratp only gave two of these specialized pawns to each side?

That may often seem like the case, but it is often not the case (at least not in FIDE chess). There are many end-games, for example, when one player has a Bishop of color opposite to that upon which his opponent's pawns rest. And, the other player has a Knight which can attack that player's pawns. I have won many such end-games. In fact, there are end-game books which clearly point out the scenarios in which knights end up being decisively better than Bishops.

http://www.angelfire.com/pq/YAHOSHUAH/nuclear.html

And had a fun quick 4 games. I think the applet might not be very strong... but you get a good idea of the explosive and addictive nature of this game.

That being said, the only clue in the rules is that there is mention that a King can move into check, and that a King could even move next to another King (but would then be captured). If a King can move into check, of course, it stands to reason that he could stay in check.

I would really like to update the rules to make 'captured king' the ONLY winning condition. That would simplify things.

I believe that is correct [that is what programs like Fritz and Chess Master seem to do... evaluating the two configurations and giving a score for the deviation] but also I would say, evaluate the pieces within the given position. The values are relative and change with every move.

The lowly pawn about to queen is a fine example. The Knight that attacks 8 spaces compared to one that attacks 4 is another, as is the 'bad' [blockaded] Bishop.

Another concept is that of brain power. For example, the late Bobby Fischer's Knights would be much more powerful than mine... not in potential, but in reality of games played. Pieces have potential, but the amount of creative power behind them is an important factor.

And today's top programs, as would be expected, have high national bridge rankings. In 2005 and 2006 a Dutch bridge magazine (IMP) discussed matches between five-time computer bridge world champion Jack and 7 top Dutch pairs (including the European champions of the time). The program defeated three out of the seven pairs (including the European champions). Overall, the program lost by a small margin (359 versus 385 imps).

From what I have seen in regard to both variants and programmers, it seems logical to conclude that any game a human mind can play, a program can be written for. The program may be flawed, but the bugs can be worked out.

In my opinion, designers need not worry about computers. If you make a great game, likely someone will get a computer to play it. That is not to say all great games end up having associated programs... but they could.

Assuming a computer is in good working order and that it has a program for
the game in question, then if it cannot play the game well, it is only
because it is lacking something in its code.  With refined codes near
optimization - the programs will defeat the humans.  If a human cannot
accept that, then he (or she) can simply play other humans to have a fair
brain-to-brain playing field.

I guess it is a sad day, that is to see the CV site posting political
opinions (reference 2 comments down). What next?

Great job!

I have never played Rococo, but in looking over the rules page it does appear interesting and challenging.

I do disagree with you when you state, '5 or 10 CVs deserving own tournament or even entire website. Rococo would probably be the only one developed under CVPage auspices worthy of those entitlements.'

I disagree because game 'likes and dislikes' are highly a matter of opinion and preference. Fergus's Mortal Kombat Shogi, for example, in my opinion, is an excellent game that seems to be a natural evolution of Shogi and easily deserves its own tournament and website... but, that likely may not be the opinion of many. There are a lot of games here that I believe are great, Templar Chess, Maxima, Modern Shatranj, to list just 3 examples. And I could list many more, but, my list would just be my opinion.

I do agree that it would be nice to see a Rococo tournament.

Again congratulations on your Rococo standing.

Any solutions? Thanks.

Anyway, that aside, for a CV event it would likely be best to take one who appears to be the best at a given game and have them play in the event. Certain games are not easy for me at all. Alice Chess is one example. Joe Joyce's very large games would be another. For me to attempt to play those games against a large group (or even an individual) would likely prove embarrassing.

As for needing to be a GM, I'd have to agree with George Duke that it is not that important in long duration events where there is a lot of time to analyze. Purdy, the former world champion postal chess player makes that point clear in his writings. In fact, when he began postal play he was losing postal games to a much weaker player; then he realized that deep correspondence analysis was much different than that seen quickly over-the-board.

When one individual plays a large group of people [where each member submits a move each turn - there is a resulting bell curve with middle-of-the road moves being played by the group.

With advisers suggesting moves we have a different scenario entirely. For instance, with three advisers, each is likely to continually submit very good moves. In that scenario the group has a relatively good chance of beating the individual.

Had it been a game I was already familiar with, that speed would have been fine.

Is there a way to adjust speed and pause play?

Anyway, I think your demo idea is a good one.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/challenge?help=1

goes to a page that shows how their voting for moves works. Also note that they have two methods.

In regard to Rich's comment below, quote:

'4. After both teams have made their moves, players have a set time to decide whether to switch teams. This is done in secret and simultaneously.'

Personally, I do not like the concept of switching teams.

I have created a second Makruk set from metal hardware. It needs painted prior to photographing.

You could not checkmate your opponent while leaving your own king in check.

Mr. Smith: Also, thanks for your comment. You are correct that removing the grid is an option. I actually considered that for a while. But rejected it because, in the endgame especially, it seems it would be easy to place a piece or pawn off-center and the chaos factor would kick in with pieces ending up in the wrong place in a face-to-face encounter... but again, a computer would always be seeing the correct algebraic coordinates. If you want, I can mention a 'Smith Variation' with grid-less board in the rules.

-------------------------------------------------- For 'fun games' and 'practice games' I have no objections to the PCs or CV couriers for this game. But for something like a rated match, I think face-to-face is the only fair system.

I suppose a program for I.C. could have different levels, where the weaker levels would have random forgetfulness factors... but then, how would you convey to the computer that it was wrong and penalize it? It could, of course, keep a true-reference position to compare to its random forgetfulness.

Getting back to 'Indistinguishable Chess,' I did mention it at a chess club last Thursday. To my surprise the club teller of tall tales stated that he bought a white board, 2 sets of white pieces, and played this game... but that no one could beat him because they couldn't remember all the pieces like he could.

1) You say 'The Bishops are colourbound.' Reply: Yes, Bishops, by definition, typically are colorbound.

2) You say, 'The board is too big, discriminating the weak pieces.' Reply: I imagine one can always view weeker pieces as being discriminated. For the number of pawns and pieces the board is certainly not too big. I base that statement on having both played and having observed the game being played on a real set with actual players sitting face to face before the game ever came over to CV.

3)You say, 'White has an advantage with symmetrical Sword play.' Reply: My testing of several over-the-board games and watching strong chess players play this live indicate this is not the case. As in Chess, symmetry usually does not last long.

4)You say, 'The new pieces are ridiculously powerful, especially the Medusa.' Reply: Both sides have the same power. And the big board you don't like helps keep the power from being too great a factor. The non-fide chess pieces, aside from Morph and Medusa, exist in Turkish Great Chess (under different names)and are no more powerful in this game than in that game and in the many other games we see them in. The Morph is not that powerful, just a shape shifter that starts out like a Bishop. As for the Medusa - again, both sides have one and need to use it wisely. Again, in watching and playing the game, the idea of too much power doesn't seem to hold up with what is seen in actual game play.

As a final point... I have won many games with the Black pieces. In fact, I don't think I've yet lost with them. If White has the advantage that you point out, well I certainly don't see it.

If you want to play a game as White against me to prove your point, I'll gladly take up the Black army. My guess is that even if you manage to win with White, you will have no easy time of it... in fact, you might even lose.

'At last I've rediscovered the variant that uses the Noclaf and Retnuh - you'd have been perfectly entitled to tell me earlier in a comment on Man and Beast 21...'

True, and I would have had I known you were searching for those pieces. But be assured that I was not withholding information. I was ignorant of the fact that there were 21 Man and Beast articles. I only noticed the Noclaf Retnuh comment of yours because I received a 'Gryphon Aanca Chess' e-mail notice of a comment.

I did, moments ago, briefly look through number 21 and was amazed at how much content you have there. Unfortunately they have no selection 'Amazing' in the rating box so I will have to postpone a possible rating. I will go back later and read M and B 21 in its entirety and then possibly read the first Man and Beast and then, perhaps others. Thank you for taking all the time and energy gathering and putting together what looks to be a great amount of piece-related information.

Thank you also for your suggestion, i.e. (A) let the kings also move diagonally and (B) the Silver Generals move to occupy the original squares of the Chinese Elephants.

Reply: That would change the game quite a bit. Each player would have much stronger defense capability. Attacking would be more difficult, defending would be easier.

If you want to make your suggested variation (which perhaps many would find better) I have no objection.

Note that there is a Zillions file for this game. The last I knew it mis-handled Cannons, but it still played by the rules and was still rather fun, I thought. ... Thanks again for your ideas.