[ 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 Missing the Mark. Making intentional errors. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2007-10-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Here White's opening move is '1 B c1-c3 (intend N b1-c3)'. That's legal in Missing the Mark, because the basis is to make moves systematically mistakenly(at option). In the 20-move score, the intended moves are in parentheses. Those intended moves themselves must be completely legal, unlike the 'mistake'. The 'error's' always involving a horizontally adjacent piece has the logic that such 'orderly chaos' really does happen. It could even be an enemy piece that is moved instead in the 'honest, inadvertent'(legal here) slip-up, just so long as, in missing the mark consistently, it always means moving some piece next over in the same rank in the same way. Positively, this method gives the (White) player extra control over a reachable square in a perfectly playable game. Actually, in Missed Mark, each side applies a different systematic displacement to move an adjacent piece at option, Black's different displacement being just as logical and consistently applied. One hates to note that the procedure is a Mutator widely applicable. More recent Switching Chesses are related in a way. Getting used to the method shows this CV just to implement what we can call a 'positional Augmenter', governed by horizontal adjacency, and there becomes no need to dwell on the whole 'Mistake' business from which RBetza got the idea.