chessvariants.com -- Comment Listing

Somebody wrote on 2005-04-04 UTCPoor ★

George Duke wrote on 2005-03-02 UTC

Grandmaster Robert Fischer, soon hopefully to reside in Iceland, has USA patent for a chess clock. The models and rationale are not chess patents per se so much as games patents broadly like Scrabble and Monopoly. The proper question is not what the hack designer-dilettante thinks of patenting games. Instead, the question is what patent holders and traditional registered-copyright inventors think of the present junk game ethos and resultant bad game pollution.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-03-02 UTC

I have nothing against patents, but I´m not sure if patenting a Chess game is a good business. There are some examples, as Omega Chess, and, as it can be seen, the economic success is, apparently, modest. Other patented games have had worse luck, and a few others are played, formally or unformally, without the knowledge and permission od the owner of the patent, some of them more or less widely ( by example,'El Juego de las Amazonas' is trademarked, and I´m almost sure it is also patented, but the owner seems to be dissapeared, it is not easy stablish contact with it -juridic personality-, if it still exists, the case is that the game is played, coded, used in many places of the world in many forms, and the owner seems to be without any knowledge of this fact). What is the advantage of patenting a Chess variant?. Unless the game becomes a hit, I can´t see many advantages, and it is very difficult for a Chess variant being a hit, judging by some examples. And, if it is a hit, some near-clones can appear, diminishing the possible economic profits to undetermined levels. But I have not doubts, many of us may be tempted on patenting a game if it becomes a hit, it is absolutelly natural, because others can take advantage and not the author. By the way, I´m waiting to see some class of hit related to a Chess variant, but I´m doubful it is going to happen soon. For a while, I´m happy if our games are played by some people which enjoys our games, and if one of them becomes a potential hit, I can´t judge the rights of the author and the freedom he has to patent his game as soon as possible. If it is not the case, I accept and respect the decision of the author, but it may seem to me an unnecessary use of the time and the money in the majority of the cases, because the question: 'What thing is trying to be protected?' has not a clear answer.

George Duke wrote on 2005-03-02 UTC

Intellectual property includes patents, trademarks and copyrights. All CVP games are copyrighted in their very publication. Viceroy patent, Quantum patent, Gothic patent, Falcon patent, Grand patent(a different one) and countless others have not precluded any CV being developed that I know of. Being inventions they open up new possibilities for forms previously untried. There is still the problem of bad game pollution to use 'Robert Fischer's' term. That may not even be strong enough. Somebody said that a 'junk CV ethos' sometimes rules--too extreme a description in my view. Yet just as some topics are over-discussed, there are also taboos never addressed. My progress through 'Large CV' thread ( about 25% so far) exposes games never even played by their inventor. Until about year 2000 most chess forms were published in treatise, magazine, book (copyrighted), or else patented. Now facility with computers lets anyone design something in an hour.

Robert Shimmin wrote on 2005-01-21 UTC

Having looked at USP 5,690,334, and noting that it claims 'A method of
playing an expanded chess-like game ... comprising the steps of ...,' I
have to ask, what is it that the inventor thinks he has actually patented?
 It seems that, the 'method of playing ... a chess-like game' having been
patented, the activity which infringes the patent is the playing of a
chess-like game according to that method: i.e., that anyone who plays
Falcon Chess infringes the patent!

While it is true that many chess-variants are invented to be admired more
than played, rarely is this design goal backed up with legal force.

George Duke wrote on 2005-01-18 UTC

Another peculiar assertion of 'Robert Fischer' begins 'If US Patent examiners were competent in the field of chess variants...' Well, USPTO Examiner William Stoll, who handles Falcon Chess, together with Benjamin Layno are highly competent, specializing in this class, the two having examined most of the games patents during 20+ yrs. I imagine they have knowledge commensurate with our CVP regulars and would even fit right in here. The decisions about Falcon Chess came in 1997, when USP5690334 issued, based on disclosure 11.January.95, coincidentally days before Chess Variant Page's first post, a time of course when Internet chess hardly started and this website's evolving culture did not exist. Think of Falcon Patent and Copyrights -- and other such CV material -- as pre-existing conditions for development of on-line chess play.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2005-01-18 UTC

I hadn't noticed the Cheops array before, but the appeal to me was that array with an empty rank behind it, since I rather like the effect of centering a Falcon behind a Bishop's starting position. Decimal Falcon Chess could be looked at as a specific version of Cheops Falcon Chess, as it specifies the board and a particular use of the board and some mildly variant promotion rules and a variety of castling rules. (I suspect castling isn't necessary there.)

George Duke wrote on 2005-01-18 UTC

Respecting copyright and for the record, FRNBKQBNRF, what Aronson is now
calling 'Decimal', I name 'CHEOPS FALCON CHESS'in my 03.October.04
Comment under Falcon Chess Patent Excerpts here in CVP. For any historical
interest,'FRNBKQBNRF' is first written down in 1994 in my Inventor's
Notebook, with each page signed and periodically witnessed. At that time I
wrote out all 120 'paired-piece-symmetrical' variations of the ten spaces
(5x4x3x2x1) figuring K-Q as the fifth 'pair'. Of course, I did not
attempt to list all 10,000 to 400,000 possibilities, virtually all of them being
of no real chess interest.  Even among the 120, there are only a handful that
are important. FRNBKQBNRF is certainly one of them for 10x10 or 10x9; and
it is called CHEOPS but DECIMAL is okay too.

George Duke wrote on 2005-01-18 UTC

Who is Robert Fischer and what is his interest in Falcon Chess? Not a CVP member, his 'Poor' for Falcon Chess 100, the game under review, makes no chess insight; I think it is quite a nice game. Besides copyright, which Chess Variant Page always conscientiously respects, Falcon Chess is covered by USP5690334. Independent Claim 1 is for the one most preferred form as in drawings. Independent Claim 9 covers all the symmetrical permutations of initial arrays. Operable words in claim 9 (not in the CVP text) are 'all at predetermined locations.' True, I did my own legal work by way of undergraduate law courses I had at Harvard University toward my degree there and use of David Pressman's 'Patent It Yourself'. Go ahead and challenge it in court since you have the threatening tone; or pay the $9000(approx.)fee for re-examination. I believe I have correctly followed US Patent practice to the letter and USPTO allowed my amended claims, which include the multiple arrays. Sorry you resent our 100-year-old games-patent tradition, including such venerable stalwarts as Scrabble and Monopoly(They too were broadly claimed--why they did not have significant copycats). For Peter Aronson and other colleagues at CVP, I welcome Falcon variations that respect the Fischer-Random-Chess-like nature of its patent claims. Examples using Falcon already are Antoine Fourriere's Bifocal Chess and Aronson's and my Complete Permutation Chess.

George Duke wrote on 2005-01-18 UTC

In USP5690334 Independent Claim One covers the one preferred embodiment 'Robert Fischer' refers to. The second independent claim 9 covers the 453,600 permutations I refer to. Having only skimmed 'Fischer's' comment, I shall now read it and respond more fully.

Robert Fischer wrote on 2005-01-17 UTCPoor ★

'(FC patent claims cover all 453,600 initial positions including these two.)' <br>_________________________________ <p>False. <p>I read your entire patent text. It does not say that. <p>What the USPTO obviously approved was your single 'preferred embodiment' which you described with sufficient detail and clarity. <p>Although they allowed your extremely long statement (including a mixture of verbose, vague and abstract rambling) to remain verbatim, you did NOT clearly and explicitly claim all 453,600 permutations of initial positions. [Of course, such an outrageous claim would have provoked the rejection of your patent application.] Apparently, you are very hopeful that your brief, bureaucratically-indecipherable description of 'other embodiments' covers all such possibilities with legal and financial force. You should give-up all hope. <p>Most experts within the chess variant community regard every unique variation as an entirely different game with the proof being in the fact that incisive games play-out with entirely different move lists. <p>For example, when Derek Nalls argued on the Yahoo group that Minister's Chess (US Patent #RE32,716) was a ripoff of Russian Symmetrical Chess, everyone who spoke-up disagreed with him. Even though the board and initial positions of pieces are identical, there are a couple of contrasting special moves which can possibly (yet not necessarily will) affect the mid-game and/or endgame. <p>So, you will need to pay the USPTO 453,599 more patent fees if you want to control everything that badly. I doubt you can justify such a huge investment, though. I hope you do not intend to sue or threaten everyone (such as Aronson) who wishes to play or invent games of the general class related (in your presumptuous opinion) to Falcon Chess. <p>Of course, if US patent examiners were competent in the field of chess variants AND incorruptible from the offerring of large amounts of money, no patents for chess variants would have ever been granted to anyone due to insufficient uniqueness compared to predating works in the public domain. In other words, your patent which covers ONLY a single initial position could probably be thrown out of court ... if ever challenged.

George Duke wrote on 2005-01-16 UTC

There is no promotion to Queen in standard 8x10 FC (USP5690334). There in actual play, promotion choices turn out roughly as follows: Rook 40% of the time, Falcon 40%, Knight 10%, Bishop 10%. So, unlike the old orthodox chess, a player really wants a N or B sometimes. Given the constraint of 100 squares, Aronson's version here is about as good as my FC100. Simply Aronson adds the empty back ranks to standard 8x10 FC and complexifies promotion rules, to distinguish a new version. That's fine:(FC patent claims cover all 453,600 initial positions including these two.) For serious chess, I don't like two promotion Zones as well, like in both of these 100-sq. FC forms. Thanks for the attention to my invention.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2005-01-16 UTC

Well, the ability to always promote to Falcon was put into Decimal Falcon Chess for two reasons: <ol> <p><li>Because the Falcon is the piece that most distinguishes the Falcon Chess family from other enlarged Chess variants; <p><li>Because it avoided the (admittedly almost pointless) question about what happens if you try to move a Pawn to the last rank, and you haven't lost any pieces yet. </ol><p> Being able to promote to Rook or Falcon instead of a captured piece means that except for the Queen, the captured pieces won't be used for promotion. Which may well be OK. It also means you could rephrase the promotion rules probably to: <p><blockquote> Pawns may promote on the 8th or 9th ranks, and must promote on the 10th rank. They may promote to Queen, Rook, Falcon, Bishop or Knight, but a player may have only one Queen on the board at a time. </blockquote><p> Some of David Short's variants used rules of that sort.

George Duke wrote on 2005-01-15 UTC

This is a good alternative I can endorse(US Patent 5690334). A Grand-Chess-like array works to keep Pawns fully engaged, and the promotion option is less radical for chess purists than original FC100. I prefer conversion to F and R both always being available because they are so equal in value, and that simple alternative is always a tough choice.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2005-01-15 UTCGood ★★★★

When fiddling around with another design, I came up with an alternate Falcon Chess on a 100 squares idea. <p> <hr> <p> <h3 align=center>Decimal Falcon Chess</h3> Chess with three-fold Falcons played on a 10x10 board. <h4>Setup</h4> Take the standard FIDE setup, and add a Falcon with a Pawn in front of it on each end, and place the white pieces on the 2nd and 3rd ranks, and the black pieces on the 8th and 9th ranks. The first and last ranks are empty. <h4>Piece Movement</h4> All pieces move as in regular Falcon Chess except as noted below. <p> Kings may either not castle, or castle as in FIDE Chess or use free castling at the choice of the players. The empty row behind the King seems to make castling less necessary. <p> Pawns may optionally promote to any previously captured piece or a Falcon on 8th or 9th rank, and <strong>must</strong> so promote if they reach the 10th rank. <h4>Comments</h4> You might think that the Falcon would be somewhat constrained in its development in the corners, but the extra option of sliding behind a Bishop and thus guarding the center once some holes open up seems to make up for it.

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item