[ 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 Big Battle. Large (10x10), commercial variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Senorita Simpatica wrote on 2007-11-11 UTCGood ★★★★A previous individual 'Fisher Kasparov Unverified' gave this game a rating of 'Poor' in his apparent angry and vulgar comment. I see not one fact listed in that comment that should give a conclusion of 'poor' for Big Battle.The individual writes, quote: 'I think this game sucks! It´s not a new game! It´s not even a new variant!' If that is the case, just state this is a remake of game_____________. That way we can see what game you are reffering to as the predecessor game. Just because a game already exists does not mean it is a poor game. However, copying a game without permission and/or proper reference to the original is poor. But that has nothing to do with the actual game. It is interesting that the critic uses the names of Fisher[sic] and Kasparov as his own - hardly original. Those names already exist. The critic goes on blabbing a bunch of comments about non-original and that he apparently is ill. So, what does that have to do with the game? My opinion: It is good to see a 10x10 board with pieces commercially available. The game is certainly playable and demands stretching one's chess logic. Does this game already exist under a different name? I don't know. But there is a Zillions engine for it. The critic did not provide us with the name of the earlier game - or with any useful information. By the way, I think editors should remove or substitute vulgar words like **** and ***** that were used in the previous comment. They are not professional. They are immature and insulting. Chess Variants people (all people) should be above and beyond such immaturity.