[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
I would put forth this board as the best flat decimal solution so far, having recently looked at the three NextChess threads, where 100 appears as plurality. Since so many others were rejected, I am indicating 1st out of 250-300 decimal 100-square chesses, ahead of Centennial; and that is how far out of line poor superficial judgments of other talkers lie. The insuperable advantage of course is that FC100 begins with the correct complementary pieces, and they are not allowed to. It just needs 5-6 more pieces per side to get normal 50-52% piece density here. Nonsensical fringe elements, including one cvp editor, disapproved the patenting (before Internet existed) without critiqueing the simplicity of two promotion zones here. The havoc of Pawns spaced more than 5 steps apart is eliminated, that dead-space. Centennial Chess deals with it positioning standard Pawns in ranks 3 and 8 to get the regular proximity. Disastrous Grand Chess tries the same spacing up front with a blank wall behind, and finally no one mentions the Grand fiasco anymore. Yet as Track I, who even needs 100 squares anyway, increasing spaces more than 50% over 64 squares? Ninety is enough for Xiangqi and 100 is being just grotesque to conservatives. If 100 were necessary, as a fallback, the extra squares of FC100 are battleground for promotion and King escape. The starting line-up just needs 5 more pieces per side back-ranked. I lean towards players' choosing and playing some variable 5 by prior agreement from over a dozen hallmark CV piece-types along with the already-positioned superior, fundamental RNBFKQP. They would include Cannon and Vao; Grasshopper, Gryphon, or bifurcator; Immobilizer. The exact extended mix from 12-25 types to choose depends whether you want them, by and large, to be as radical as the radical-already 100-square board itself. Really I don't think anything but Track II material can come out of large 100 squares respecting the tolerance of mainliners. And under Track II, the bizarre and the idiosyncratic championed by cvpage proliferation, I would entirely withdraw FC100 as far too conventional, having then no difficulty finding 10-20 good CV artworks to look at humorously. Another way of looking at it is as 100 squares being the very upper limit of respectability for *potential* Track 1, appealing to FIDE-types (our common ancestor). In fairness, most designers coming up with things on 100 squares are not wanting them to be for Track I consideration, including several broached at NextChess threads. There are many, many more likely 8x8 saving graces still to be bandied, more likely than any top-heavy ''decimal'' for strict Track I. It could be that just the right castling tweaks around Winther's current comment, or small-scale FRC tweak, are all needed, to save face within so many worldwide appearing to be abandoning Chess and rational thinking. Devolution, in contradistinction to Evolution.
To DPaulowich's question, FC100 will always have promotion to Queen in its further Promotion Zone 1. That extra step or two of Pawn to Promotion Area 1 square entitles the alternative to Queen(or F or N). Zone 2 is to only RNBF.
You seem to believe this game is also protected by your US patent for 'Falcon Chess'. [Note the distinction.] The irony is that it is not protected from a bad rating by me for precisely that reason.
'Grandmaster Robert Fischer, soon hopefully to reside in Iceland, has USA patent for a chess clock.' his patent expired in November 2001 due to a problem with maintenance fees. since then, I believe Fischer clocks have grown in popularity.
Falcon Chess 100. Falcon Chess played on an expanded board of a 100 squares with special Pawn rules. (12x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have just blocked a message here for inflammatory content against this website. Since the inflammatory rhetoric of that message is typical of its author, all his comments will now be blocked pending review.
Falcon Chess 100. Falcon Chess played on an expanded board of a 100 squares with special Pawn rules. (12x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Falcon Chess 100. Falcon Chess played on an expanded board of a 100 squares with special Pawn rules. (12x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Falcon Chess 100. Falcon Chess played on an expanded board of a 100 squares with special Pawn rules. (12x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes, Fischer does have a patent on a clock (and I think his clock is a pretty good idea.) I wonder if the patent has anything to do with the fact that Fischer Clock has totally failed to catch on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
'(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Falcon Chess 100 has two promotion zones. Only if Pawn gets into the corner-like squares, 4 northwest and 4 northeast, for total of eight squares is there option to promote to Queen. Otherwise, only reaching Zone 2, Pawn must promote to Rook, Falcon, Knight or Bishop. I was influenced, to vary means of promoting, by the several piece to piece promotion implementations current around year 2000 in IO, Pocket Mutation and Tamerspiel. Instead Falcon Chess 100 has no piece promotion but two Pawn zones.