The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.

The Chess Variant Pages

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Gary Gifford wrote on 2007-09-13 UTCPoor ★
I tried real hard not to comment here... but, I was very curious as to what the result would be if I rated this variant using George W. Duke's very own 6 Point rating standards (as were used in his rating of Latrunculi). So I borrowed his rating comment, read over his 90.5 Trillion rules and analyzed. I could only reach the conclusion that while it is a very good page for gaming theory and mathematics, it is poor as a chess variant, despite there being 91.5 Trillion games claimed. We begin: (1)The CV passes this first category, though I might have missed a reference to Shogi. Latrunculi referenced Shogi pieces, but G.Duke did not count that anyway. This first category is the effort to cite precedents of previous use. He passes, good so far. (2)Game analysis - oops I didn't see any games or game analysis (3) Justification - hmmm... no, can't say I saw any, other than to reach a big number, but as the song goes, 'That don't impress me much' (4) Game Scores - nope, no game scores. Out of 90.5 Trillon games you think there would be at least one game score (5) Starting a game to play - with 91.5 Trillion Games ... no, I did not see those started. (6)Putting up a Preset - saw none linked to from the page. Final score: 1 out of 6. Perhaps I misused Mr. Duke's rating system... but I tried to apply it the exact same way I saw it applied to Latrunculi (which also got a poor 1 out of 6).