Comments by catugo
I don't know why the Picture does not work! It works for me!
I though at warlock for ZW because it is related to the wizard CF.
Agreed! But I am all for publishing piece values obtained through applying your experimental method. That and other tactical or strategic tips the author has found. For example I have observed that it is wrong to move a joker, in all my apothecary games, if there are pawns still ahead because they can move forward attacking the joker while the poor sucker cannot run, as it imitates a pawn. Conversely if there are no pawns ahead moving the joker to the center can be very fruitful as it can imitate anything making it temporarily the most powerful piece on the board.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Why is that? The falcon is a rook strength piece. With two Manticores there would be three strong pieces and two medium strength pieces! To me having three medium pieces and two strong ones seems a better distribution of strength.
I think a nice feature would be to allow multiple platforms for cannon like pieces. Personally as I don't like the idea of bishops in a Xiangqi or Janggi environments I'd like a pRppcR instead (where pp stands for 2 platforms). Some food for thought.
Actually I expect something along the same lines but better, meaning a stronger engine! I am aware of the fact that it can take many months, though!
Hello HG, A few weeks ago I noticed you contemplated writing a C++ code for the AI of the interactive diagram. Anything from this contemplation?
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
What is scramble?
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
You have a typo at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph in the rules section. You have written "wite: instead of "white".
You are welcome!
Here is the latest installer version: http://www.chessv.org/. But there are some much newer versions. I'll search tomorrow!
And by the way, has anyone news on Greg?
Once, when writing code for CwDA, Greg Strong has asked the community for an alternative named to fibnif, as he did not like it. I have proposed lancer and donkey while favoriting lancer. He has chosen lancer for chessV2!
Chu shogi, elven chess, atlantean ballroom shatranj.
I think the name for WthenB, in games where the FthenR, is present should be chosen acoordingly. So should, in more fantastic theme, the tandem be named manticore and griffin, or in an animal theme rhino and eagle should work also. Personally I like to keep, for games with less pieces, where you don't run into name exhaust, a medieval theme names for both the WthenB and FthenR. So names like duke, minister or regent come into my mind.
Nasty little Bob, I see what you've done there!
@HG, I did it first. But I think for me I explained why was that the case. Was I wrong as far as you can see? I'm wondering this as you say that if one person does it (me in this case), then it can perpetuate!
I think HG, does not refer to games that fit a "collection" of sort, but when an author promotes most of his article that, way. For example my just published games inspired by Kevin could find a their place in such a collection and therefore link to each other. But I mention nothing about my apothecary games there. That would make no sense. This is the position I'm taking and I am against the practice mentioned by HG! And I'd really like this clarified as most of my games are coming in collections!
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.

Ok, I'll remember that for the future!