Comments by GaryK.Gifford

In regard to the question, 'Can archers capture by replacement [displacement]?' Answer: Yes. There is an example of this in the archer movement/shooting section of the rules.

Mr. Smith. You stated, 'I meant that your Bishops are on the same colour.' Reply: I look at the rules setup and see 4 bishops (2 for each side) and on different colors. I look at this preset (/play/pbm/play.php) and see the same setup. However, I found that another pre-set was setup wrong. So your Bishop criticism it seems, was to one of two pre-sets, not to the true setup as seen in the rules. I fixed the error.

Regarding your White advantage and asymmetry equalizing statements you also say,'I don't need examples.' Reply: But an example (if it existed and if it was not an exception to the rule) would clarify and tend to validate your statements.

In your most recent comment you give me credit for a little equation that I have nothing to do with and as I see it, has nothing much to do with the game. You go as far as to give another persons' different answer to the equation. An example of a game position would be relevant. Showing us a zero and a 1/2 tells us nothing about the game.

Yesterday you mentioned,'... and I didn't say that the Morph was powerful.' But it seems you did, indirectly. Because there are really only 2 new pieces in that game (the Morph and the Medusa) when compared with Turkish Great Chess. So, with simple logic we see:(a) your statement that new pieces are ridiculously powerful and (b)we understand that the Morph is one of two new pieces then (c) we conclude the Morph is ridiculously powerful.

On a final note from me this time around, you implied that perhaps you would not play the game against me using White pieces because I would have an advantage due to playing strength. So that brings us to another point... the point that playing strength actually influences the outcome of a game. I would go as far as saying that the stronger player will generally win at Pillars of Medusa, regardless of color... with the occasional exceptions due to an oversight, but not due to game mechanics.

Mr. Smith. Thanks for attempting to clarify. Note that there is no need for a second rating of 'Poor' from yourself (the first one counts and continues to count just fine for a long time).

I do not understand now, when you now say 'Bishops are colourbound as a pair.' Yes, isn't that normal for Bishops? Each side has 1 white square bishop and 1 black square bishop. And Bishops by nature stay on their color.

Also, I do not understand when you say, 'It doesn't matter if play can be assymmetrical. Assymmetry evens out.' I really don't see what you are trying to get at. The possible piece and pawn placement is astronomical. What exactly is 'evening out?' Have you some actual game move lists and or positions (from real games) to serve as examples?

Mr. Smith - Thank you very much for commenting. Though I have a few simple counterpoints:

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.

Joe: I just read your comment... many thanks. In regard to the pre-set, Should there be one? Could we trust people to play using all White pieces on a white board? In regard to knowing the Flying Hippopotamus Opening, which I take is a joke (but maybe not), I do know the Old Hippo opening. Davide Rozzoni, established chess author Bill Wall, and I collaborated on a chess book called, 'Winning with the Krazy Kat and Old Hippo.' More information is here http://www.lulu.com/content/3292224 and Chessville's Rick Kennedy has written a review on it which should appear sometime in the near future. I also list the chess variants website in the back... so perhaps there will be a few chess players visiting CV.

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.

Mr. Jepps: Thank you for your idea involving the use of 1 set. Your suggestion - to take a 'standard chess set and switch the colors to every other.. so a White rook on a1, a Black Rook on a8, but then a Black Knight on b2 and then a White Knight on b8. .. etc' is yet another possible variation in setup... and I take it you would use a checkered board too? At any rate, your version could certainly play havoc with one's mind. As the brain would have to battle conflicting information.

I personally would still prefer to use a uni-color set because if I were playing standard chess I would not want my mind to start playing tricks on me with the idea of certain White pieces actually being Black pieces and visa versa. Others however, may not be bothered by this. One thing is certain, the chess positions would be very very wild... and each one an illusion. If okay with you, I can add the 'Jepps' setup idea to the page somewhere.

Mr. Muller: Thanks for the comment. You are correct, of course; in that the game could easily be implemented for computer play... and I suppose that such an implementation would at least provide a good workout for a human. But for a match such as Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, the machine would be playing Chess and the Human would be disadvantaged due to playing Indistinguishable Chess. I could easily make a pre-set for I.C.... but I imagine, at home, a dual-color set would be referenced by a player. I like your draught version idea using the marking on the reverse. In fact, in a physical chess set with solid bottoms, all the white pieces could be marked as B or W on the bottoms. If you do not want to create a separate game, I would be glad to add your Muller Variation to the I.C. page.

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.

Note that the red king and red queen pieces should be switched in regard to starting location. For Makruk, Kings start on d1 and e8; Queens start on e1 and d8.

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

This link:

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 enjoyed watching the demo - but for me I would like to be able to slow it down. I wanted to look over the position but the moves just kept coming at a pretty good clip. I had no time to really think about what was going on.

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.