[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
If you really want to go for the ultimate in symmetry, I would suggest we need to do away with the notion of a square board. A square has only eight symmetries: reflection NS or EW, 180 degree rotation, or any (or no) combination of these. Indeed, the ultimate in symmetry would be to do away with the board's edges: the board should be infinite, hence giving it translational as well as reflectional symmetry. And we should do away with the notion of cells within the board: the most symmetrical 2-dimensional object being the entire Euclidean plane, in which any point is equivalent to any other. Then we have complete rotational symmetry, about any point, as well as translations and reflections. But since we're pursuing symmetry as the ultimate goal here, we need to embolden ourselves to take the next vital step as well. To do away with the last vestiges of ugly asymmetry, we must also abolish the pieces: for once pieces are introduced into our pristine continuum, they render the game asymmetrical again, by causing some points and directions to have more importance than others: in particular, the points pieces occupy, and the directions they would need to move to attack other pieces, would have special importance. Our ultimate, perfectly symmetrical chess must therefore consist of an infinite plane with NO PIECES AT ALL. It might be objected that without pieces it will be difficult to state rules of movement, capture, initial setup, and object. But clearly, since we desire a perfectly symmetrical game, we must abolish these notions as well: because the perfectly symmetrical chess game must be symmetrical in time as well as in space, and therefore it must have no beginning, no end, and no change: the state of the game at any point must be the same as its state at any other point. And so, at last, we have our perfectly symmetrical game: no cells, no pieces, no goal, no players: is not its perfect, chaste serenity a thing of beauty? Have we not achieved true theoretical perfection? And can we not get back to discussing real chess games now?
My, you are a barn-burner! [Fast, too.] You seem to clearly understand what you have undertaken and introduced. For the test purpose you have in mind, my preliminary assessment is that your assortment of games are above average to excellent. Are you hoping for a collective interest and effort which will get enough of these games adequately playtested within a reasonable time to prove and/or disprove one of our competing, mutually-exclusive hypotheses? Perhaps, it will happen. I hope so. Best of luck and my compliments for your remarkable initiative! By the way, you may have invented a great game today (which you will someday be remembered for) even if doing so was merely incidental to your main purpose.
3 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.