[ 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 Grotesque Chess. A variant of Capablanca's Chess with no unprotected Pawns. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2008-10-29 UTCGood ★★★★'':-)'' is Muller's own characteristic notation, as for example Muller's Comment 25.October.2008 at ''Zillions and GC,'' using the same '':-)'' at the end. So in the last two immediate comments. H.G. Muller is holding conversation with himself, anonymously as ''__'' and then with the user identification, following closely. That is fine. I actually also slightly prefer Threads where I name the topic and make up to all Comments, like current ''Anand_Kramnik.'' The particular style as variety keeps direction if not always depth and clarity. Now credit Grotesque's using the year 1992 Falcon-initiated form of castling two or more over. The problem of course, discussed more mid-decade, is that really all of these on 8x10 are Carrera-Capablanca randomized set-ups. Somehow for the general chess public, it would be better if all like Grotesque were under one roof, from Duniho's, Trice's, Trenholme's, to Winther's several ''Carreras'' on 8x10. Suppose for example, a string of ''Rococos'' differed only in position of Swapper, Immobilizer as to which one is oppositely-cornered, and Chameleon and Withdrawer as to which sits next to King. It is self-evident they would all still be Rococo. It is obvious point by now for regulars, but I always try scaling my Comment in context to draw more interest from casual viewers. Also relevant is thread ''FatallyFlawed M/C,'' that Marshall and Cardinal are proven subpar pieces of historical interest mainly, and active designers pretty much omit them nowadays.