Comments by Bn Em
More likely the software the author was referring to was simply never archived (and may well have been all but forgotten)
This page has that information (possibly subject to some noise from duplication) for finished games, but I'm not aware of it ever having been promoted as a means of discovery. The sample sizes for all but the most popular games are small enough to admit significant biases, and no account is taken of how recent the games are, which might go some of the way to explaining that
I've now published this;
note that when viewing without Javascript enabled, the diagram fails to show up; it might be worth placing a backup diagram (with suitable placeholder images for the bent rider and leaper) under \<noscript\>
for those who don't JS
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.
Are we to guess which one isn't? ;)
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
I imagine so; Haru and H.G. have both done a handful of examples. Of course some are easier than others (some of David Cannon's designs might be…tricky)
Noöne has made one.
It wasn't really established as a piece with much history back in the Piececlopedia's heyday, and of the occasional additions made since it's apparently been less of a priority. If noöne gets to it by the time I've got round to doing Panda (slip‐rook) and Stag (4,2, a.k.a. lancer/charolais) pages, it'll be next on my list, but that may be a little while
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
It seems adding it to the group had reverted both the publishing and the Language‐label change. I've set it to Public/Russian again, and it's also now showing up on the Related menu for the English page
@Fergus:
The Metadata‐editing page seems to default to Members‐only/English even now; other recently‐published pages (Mischia, f.ex.) seem to lack this issue. Any particular reason this might be? EDIT: Seems that Firefox caches the default values fsr; refreshing the cache solves the problem
But what did you mean by ‘enlarge’? You mean you want to add more of those?
In any case, I've now published this and correctly set the language as Russian; you can now find it near the bottom of the aforementioned page (just above the Chinese pages)
EDIT: I've now also added it to a Group with the English page, but it seems to only have had half the desired effect: the English page is now accessible from the Russian one via the EDIT 2: Seems it had to do with this page getting unpublished due to my browser caching metadata‐editor form values; the Related
menu on the menu bar, but the reverse is not the case; could one of the more experienced editors who knows how the Groups subsystem works (@Fergus?) give a quick explanation?Related
menu has liks both ways now
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
As far as I can tell, it seems to conform to your existing English page, but alas knowledge of Russian among the Editors is extremely limited. If one of our other Russian‐speaking friends (@Вадря?) can confirm that the text matches I'm happy to publish.
Bþw, I think you could get away with translating the text on the piece‐set buttons too; whether you want to transliterate Bob's surname is a matter of taste (I suppose Bob would get a say too), but ‘Galactic’ and ‘Joyful’ are, after all, just words… The same would in principle apply to the explanatory text on the Interactive Diagram, but (having not checked the details of its operation) I assume that's not directly under your control (@H.G.: any plans for i18n support?)
how to enlarge the list of non-English pages which are MS rather than games’ pages?
Not sure what you mean here; this page lists what seems to be all non‐english pages in the database, in case that's what you're looking for; otherwise please be more specific
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.
I had seen these, yes; I must've had some reason for withholding them, but coming back to them the only thing that I notice is that they all have the WMW in common. So since I let that stand last time…
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
The most recent change to this page removes all description of the rules, directing the reader to an external site. This seems undesirable.
Besides the noted name conflict (in fairness hard to spot, as Haru's game of the same name (hyphen aside) is effectively a footnote to the main game described on the linked page), it'd be good to have a textual description of the Spider's move, besides the diagram.
I wonder a little bit about having so many of such a powerful piece in terms of potential decisiveness concerns
@Haru: Spider XQ may well be a more appropriate/specific name for your game in any case ;) Esp. with Qu'erquesite XQ alongside it
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
The reference to pieces being ‘bound’ to columns remains in the Rules section; it's more‐or‐less clear from context what you mean but since that word has an established technical meaning (being unable to leave a region as a consequence of one's move, as of e.g. a Bishop) it'd be clearer to avoid it entirely. In any case that sentence adds little more than linking with the name; ‘associated with’ would be quite clear.
It would probably be clearer to fold the statement about the e
file into the subsection about Ranks 3–7 as another bullet point, rather than giving it a separate subs'n. Which would also allow you to get rid of the exception notice
I must admit I'm still a bit torn about the name of this one; the acronym is oddly pleasingly pronounceable, but I'm quite wary of this kind of ‘name‐without‐naming’ — it's a bit like starting a conversation with “what shall we talk about” in that it doesn't really provide any information…
The 1. e2
opening seems to have a couple of plausible defenses after all (at least on a slightly‐less‐cursory look) so I won't worry about it too much
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
The linked page has games in order according to number of games finished on GC, which is the closest we have to the inforation you asked about. But I don't think anyone's suggested using it as a kind of rating for games. One possible reason could be that the number of games played is quite small (CV's are a niche hobby!) except for the very most popular games (Shōgi, Chess, Sac, ⁊c.; only the first 15 games have over 100 games played) so statistical biases are quite likely; and the count doesn't take into account time, meaning that some games could have once been popular but now fallen out of favour, but would still show up with large numbers (I don't know how many, if any, this actually applies to in practice — probably it's unimportant with the small sample size anyway).