Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

In FireFox I flush the cache by refreshing the page with the Shift key pressed. This only deletes everything associated with the current page.

Most browser algorithms always load the page with the URL that you are requesting, and rely on cached data only for the files it links to (like images, style files and scripts). So if the above is not possible for you it might work to directly access the betza script through the link

http://chessvariants.com/membergraphics/MSinteractive-diagrams/betza.js?nocache=true

The latest version should contain the word listGame .

That does seem to have worked. :)

Yes, thanks HG

I am a bit unhappy with the way we select featured variants, because it seem to lead to a presentation that is very much biased towards what we could call "Chess with Alternative Armies": variants that differ from orthodox Chess by the participation of a view pieces that move with slightly different leaps, perhaps on a somewhat larger board. Now I admit that these are the variants that I like best too, but the world of chess variants offers so much more.

Perhaps we should reconsider the idea that we should feature mainly variants that are already popular on this site. Our regular visitors will already know those, and others will be guided to those easily enough by other mechanism (such as the Our Favorites menu item, or the Game Courier logs). If the featured variants do exactly the same thing, it really serves no purpose at all. I think it would be much more useful to feature variants that involve some rather original concept.

And then I don't mean "wow, this has a piece that makes a (0,3) leap", but rather pieces that explode on capture (Atomic Chess), need to be captured twice before they disappear (Golem Chess), involve move induction (Knight Relay Chess), can swap pieces (Odin's Rune Chess), morph into other types (Kyoto Shogi, Bishop-Knight Morph Factor), have moves that depend on location (Elk Chess). Also multi-move variants (Marseillais, Chieftain Chess), multiple royalty (Extinction Chess), 'capture the flag' winning conditions (King of the Hill, Racing Kings), alternative winning conditions (Three-Checks, Suicide), neutral pieces (Duck Chess), incomplete information (Dark Chess), irregular board shapes (Balbo's Chess), irregular tilings (Singularity Chess). It seems to me most of these peculiarities have no chance at all to be in any featured variant, the way we go about it now.

I second this: feature games that show some sort of innovative thinking. It's part of how I came up with Blender Chess, Dealer's Chess, Zwangkrieg, Chess on a Tesseract, and (to a lesser extent) Short Sliders (and the Leapers Who Love Them). I could easily nominate Pick-the-Team Chess or Deconstruction Chess for their creativity.

I think Shatranj of Troy would be good to feature.

Of the games that have been nominated and seconded, Sac Chess and Hectochess are the only ones I identified that can be played through either Game Courier or against a computer with a program. Both are supported by ChessV and Ai Ai. In addition to this, Hectochess already had an Interactive Diagram on its page, though Sac Chess did not.

Since Hectochess is a descendant of Gross Chess, which was recently featured, I decided to go with Sac Chess for October. So, I found an interactive diagram for it in the comments and added it to the page. I also added some piece graphics, some links to Piececlopedia articles and related games mentioned in the text, and some changes to the HTML and text.

If you're interested in having other games featured, please make sure they are playable both online, preferably through Game Courier, and against a computer opponent, ideally Zillions-of-Games or stronger.

What is status of Metamachy now in this process?

What is status of Metamachy now in this process?

It was nominated, but no one has seconded it.

If you're interested in having other games featured, please make sure they are playable both online, preferably through Game Courier, and against a computer opponent, ideally Zillions-of-Games or stronger.

This is good information to have. I definitely want to make GC and ZoG for Short Sliders (the one game that I've submitted so far that I think is most worthy), though I also intend to work on Desert Dust, Hundred Acre Chess, and Zwangkrieg, as well as others that I haven't posted yet.

I think my two apothecary games are fulfilling your criteria, Fergus. Maybe someone may nominate one or both. Unfortunately for my 12 x 12 games, chessV does not support Rn then bishop or Bn then Rook!

Hectochess also fits these requirements quite well.

1. The game has a history of being played, especially since it was featured in 2019's CV tournament.

2. It is playable on Game Courier, and playable on the board, with two mismatched Chess sets and an appropriately sized International Draughts board.

3. The page shows what a good CV page should look like.

4. (Bonus) This game is one of only two of my games as of the writing of this coment to have 5 favorites, alongside Seireigi.

Adam, I find this process more frustrating than anything else. I see that people start now to suggest their own games, which is against the rules, understandbly.

Hectochess has not been selected because it is "descendent" from Gross Chess. Apparently, this reason was not a problem to feature Gross Chess after Eurasian Chess.

I have had a similar experience with my games. Shako had been featured, then someone proposed Metamachy and Metamachy was rejected because it is in the same "category" than Shako.

But I smiled when I read that "I'll make Expanded Chess the featured variant for September, 2023. It is the most favorited of games that have been nominated and seconded, and it has a good web page." Expanded Chess is a very good game indeed, but it is favored 10 times while Metamachy is favored 14 times.

14 is a fair score, but it is not enough to be featured. Why? Because it has been nominated but not SECONDED! Look, I am the one who had proposed Hectochess. Actually I had proposed Hectochess along with a list of 8 or 9 games, all those (not authored by me) that I had selected for my book More Chess and More Than Chess. So Hectochess, Opulent Chess, Expanded Chess, Gross Chess, Eurasian Chess, Elven Chess, etc. All belonging to the same "category".

I had been generous doing that. Unfortunately for me, nobody has returned me the courtesy. So only 1 person has nominated Metamachy and it would be necessary to have another one (if you are among the 14 who had favored Metamachy, maybe you could consider to nominate it too, just for fun!)

This is a bit childish. HG has tried to propose another direction, that we distinguish between nomination, feature, etc. Why not? I think it could be good. But, it doesn't work like this for the moment, partly by my fault because by proposing my long list, I have inserted a list of games which all belong to the same category. So, only 1 single other voice is enough to have 1 of these games seconded, while any others (including mines) need 2 voices at least. And there are not many voices speaking for someone else's games.

Hectochess and Metamachy have not been rejected. They have simply not been featured yet. Each month, we feature only one variant, and relations to what we have recently featured can factor into deciding which variant to feature for a particular month. Not being featured one month does not mean that a variant will never be featured. If a game has already been nominated and seconded, and it meets the requirements, it's likely to eventually make it to being featured.

Since my biggest worry about the featured-variants program is diversity, I will refrain from seconding any "Chess with Alternative Armies" variants until we have featured a fair amount of variants from other categories. No matter how much I like Metamachy, which I think would indeed be the most deserving of the CwAA category. Sorry about that, Jean-Louis.

It is disappointing (and indeed childish) that inventors abuse the programs that are intended for guiding novices in the field of chess variants merely to promote their own inventions. The 'favorites' mechanism is corrupted in the same way. There is something to be said for allowing inventors to favorite some of their own games, to indicate what they consider their best inventions. But with a crowd as childish as what we are dealing with, it only seems to lead to most inventors shamelessly favoriting all of their inventions, just to get them higher on the list of favorites. This is no doubt fuelled by the thought "his invention passed mine because of a self vote, so I must retaliate by self-voting too". So in practice allowing to favorite your own games does more harm than good.

Another flaw in the favorites system is that some people have a much lower threshold for favoriting something than others. Being favorited by someone that has hundreds of favorites doesn't mean all that much, and definitely a lot less than being favorited by someone with only 10 favorites. And since most of the votes are of course from people that vote most, this makes the favorites score pretty insignificant, dominated by votes from people that don't really care. To cure these flaws the system should impose a maximum on the number of variants you can favorite, and in addition a maximum on the number of your own inventions you can favorite. Even making the latter a percentage, to not disadvantaging prolific inventors too much, could be dangerous. Because I foresee the situation where childish inventors would create a massive number of garbage variants just to create voting power to use for promoting their serious inventions. After all, "it only takes 10 sec to invent a new chess variant"...

To preclude that the number of your own games that you can favorite could be made a percentage of the number of inventions you have that are favorited by others.

That being said, I second the nomination of Shatranj of Troy.

I apologize for nominating my own game. I have just wanted to say that my variants fulfill all the criteria besides being nominated. Anyway I'm working at new versions for them, so I don't care that much about 2 games I consider deprecated. As not even chessV will support them, I'm writing my own AI to play them and that takes time.

Also HG, I have raised the matter about unlimited favoriting myself a few years back.

I have made Hectochess the featured variant for November. Hectochess is playable with Game Courier, ChessV, Ai Ai, and the Interactive Diagram on its page.

Now that I've fixed up the Ultima page and have cited official sources on its rules, I would like to nominate Ultima.

Regarding the Shatranj of Troy nomination and second, this game has an uncoded Game Courier preset, and as far as know, it is not supported by any program for playing it. Those who are interested in seeing it featured may do something about this.

To be honest, I didn't expect to see Hectochess featured this soon, but it is nice to see my efforts recognized, at least in a small way, so thank you. When I made my case for the game, I thought of it as less of a nomination and more of a a comment pointing out that Hectochess met the requirements (sans being seconded) for being featured. I expected it to be swept under the rug.

That being said, it seems that the featured variants system is garnering some serious debate among the more senior members. Especially Jean-Louis Cazaux is frustrated by this process of featuring variants. Perhaps during the holiday months we could step back and make some improvements to this system rather than feature a variant through the current system.

No voting system is flawless, but given what some are saying about the voting system, improving the voting system for featured variants, even in a small way, would be a good idea.

That being said. I might make a case for Seireigi in the future, once it gets a few more years under its belt.

I didn't expect to see Hectochess featured this soon

We're running low on eligible games that have been nominated and seconded. If more are not nominated and seconded in the future, I may start featuring games that have already been featured.

Especially Jean-Louis Cazaux is frustrated by this process of featuring variants.

Inventors can understandably get frustrated with their own games not being featured soon enough, but games are not being featured just to please inventors. They are being featured to provide visitors with curated options.

Perhaps during the holiday months we could step back and make some improvements to this system rather than feature a variant through the current system.

It seems fine the way it is. We mainly need more participation in nominating and seconding games and more work taken toward making games eligible that are not yet eligible.

No voting system is flawless, but given what some are saying about the voting system, improving the voting system for featured variants, even in a small way, would be a good idea.

Requiring a nomination and a second is already a very lax voting system. The main reason this is not stricter is that games also have to meet eligibility requirements, and this involves people putting in the work to support the games on multiple platforms.

That being said. I might make a case for Seireigi in the future, once it gets a few more years under its belt.

As the inventor, you won't be able to nominate it, but you can work on promoting it. Although I didn't initially find anything in the Play menu or the tags about it being playable, I updated the database to show the Game Courier preset in the Play menu, and I added a Ludii tag to the page to show it can be played on Ludii.

Are there any conditions for participating in 'Featured Chess Variants'? Certainly yes! Which ones, where?

Are there any conditions for participating in 'Featured Chess Variants'?

You have to be a member to nominate or second a game, and you can't nominate or second your own games. Games have to meet eligibility requirements, which are already described on this page.

We're running low on eligible games that have been nominated and seconded. If more are not nominated and seconded in the future, I may start featuring games that have already been featured.

Duck Chess has been nominated and seconded. It has an Interactive Diagram, there are several engines that can act as computer opponents, it can be (and is) played on-line on chess.com... But as long as 'eligible' appears to mean that you should be "familiar with the variant", nominating and seconding doesn't seem to achieve much. So no, I wouldn't say the existing system is fine, and the fact that you consider featuring variants a second time should be a very convincing indication of that.

as long as 'eligible' appears to mean that you should be "familiar with the variant", nominating and seconding doesn't seem to achieve much.

I have never played Expanded Chess or Hectochess. So, my familiarity with a game has not been the barrier you seem to think it is.

You have some good points. Not having enough variants to feature is quite concerning indeed. However, the system is still quite young, so it needs time to garner more variants.

As the inventor, you won't be able to nominate it, but you can work on promoting it. Although I didn't initially find anything in the Play menu or the tags about it being playable, I updated the database to show the Game Courier preset in the Play menu, and I added a Ludii tag to the page to show it can be played on Ludii.

Can authors add tags to their articles as well?

Edit: I answered my own question. Yes, authors can add tags to their pages.

I have never played Expanded Chess or Hectochess. So, my familiarity with a game has not been the barrier you seem to think it is.

I am not really thinking anything. It was the reason you gave for rejecting the Duck Chess nomination.

Can authors add tags to their articles as well?

Yes, any member can tag any page that can be tagged.

It was the reason you gave for rejecting the Duck Chess nomination.

You are selectively remembering what I wrote and drawing the wrong interpretation. Here is what I wrote in comment 48184:

Because we have not provided much support for this game on the Chess Variant Pages, I would like to hold off on that. I am completely unfamiliar with this game, and I have not found any record of games played. In the meantime, there are some other games that have received a nomination and a second.

Notice how "hold off on that" does not mean rejected. Notice how I give two other reasons besides my unfamiliarity with the game for holding off on it. These are:

• we have not provided much support for this game on the Chess Variant Pages

• I have not found any record of games played

So where did you look for these games played? AFAIK there does not even exist a GC preset for it here. Did you look on chess.com? Even if there was a preset here people would probably not use it, as the chess.com interface is so much better. The requirements for featuring regarding on-line play used to say "preferably on GC". Should we read that as "exclusively on GC"?

Why would it matter anyway whether the support is on CVP or elsewhere? We are not featuring variants with the purpose of promoting the site, right? The purpose is to promote the variant.

I am no more an editor (I used to be) but as I was here at the earliest times (which were more friendly) I dare to give my opinion. Again. For me this Featured Chess Variant is either to 1) shine a light on some original CV that we want to advise. Or, and it is a completely different goal, 2) award a special recognition to a variant which is attracting success.

If it is 1), no need to have this completely arbitrary process with nomination, seconding, etc. Why not requesting a third or a fourth nomination btw? In such a case I completely agree with HG, almost all featured games so far are from the same category (and I can't complain as it is the category I love) and it is a pity that Duck Chess, Shatranj of Troy, and more, cannot be elected because of this or that.

If it is 2) then this process is bringing nothing more valuable than two other lists we have already, that ranking the CV by games played on GC and that ranking the CV by number of favorite hearts (with or without the complex computation that you recently elaborated, which brings nothing relevant btw).

From my perspective what we have is a sort of 2). Whatever Fergus says, it is an opaque process. We know the list of criteria, but we don't know the list of pretending games and their position versus the criteria. The criterias are quite discutable but they have never been discussed for approval by anyone. We understand that it is not cristal clear for a nomination, as at the end, or better say every 1st of the month, we are looking to see what has been democratically elected.

As a joke, I propose Janggi, in its Northern set-up, for the next one.

For me this Featured Chess Variant is either to 1) shine a light on some original CV that we want to advise. Or, and it is a completely different goal, 2) award a special recognition to a variant which is attracting success.

It is neither. It is about showcasing some of the best and best-supported games on our site. While some people will be more interested in featuring original games, that is up to them, and this system is not here specifically for showcasing original games. This system is also not here for the purpose of awarding games. Inventors might see it as a kind of award, but it is mainly about directing visitors to some high-quality content before they poke around and find some of our inferior web pages.

Why not make featuring last longer? Instead of 1 month, it could be 3 or 4.

It is about showcasing some of the best and best-supported games on our site.

This sentence is slightly ambiguous, as it is not clear whether the requirement is that the game should be presented on our site and have the best conceivable support in general (to which our presentation then refers), or whether it is only the support on our site that counts. The latter is not really compatible with the description that is now on the Featured Variants page:

• The game should have a history of being played, even if only on Game Courier. Concept games that even the inventor hasn't played will not be accepted.
• It should be playable by online correspondence and with a computer program, generally meaning that it should be programmed for Game Courier and Zillions of Games, but being available on other sites or with other programs will do. Basically, if we're going to draw attention to a game, we should also provide opportunities to play it.

It seems that "even if only on GC" should be replaced by "on GC", and that we'd better delete the emphasized phrase in the 2nd requirement.

BTW, it is strange that special status is given here to ZoG, which is a commercial program, that most readers will not have. While free programs often exist that do the same job far better (e.g. in terms of playing strength). Offering a ZRF file here through a download link, but requiring people to buy ZoG from another site is not really an improvement over requiring them to download something from another website for free.

So I'd rather say here that "free programs to play it should be available, but being programmed for ZoG will do"...

Some anomalies:

• I tried to upload a small image for dressing up the featured-variant announcement to the /membergraphics/MShectochess directory through ftp, but got a 'permissuon denied' error. (I know there are other ways for an editor to upload image files there, but in other cases the ftp worked without problems.)
• The announcement on some pages (including the Featured Variants page) uses black font in the black box, which doesn't make it very readable.

Why not make featuring last longer? Instead of 1 month, it could be 3 or 4.

Why would we do that? There are so many high-quality pages here that deserve to be visited.

@Fergus: sorry, but your answer does not clarify at all. It seems clear in your mind, but it is not in mine. I don't catch the nuance. If the criteria is "best" and "best-supported", these are subjective by nature.

Of course, if a "Featured CV" is considered as "best", I don't see how the inventor could not see it as an honorable distinction. I understand the goal, but the full process is too opaque and lies almost only in your hands.

If the criteria is "best" and "best-supported", these are subjective by nature.

Best may be subjective, but best-supported is not. The selection process works by applying multiple levels of peer review. Here are the levels:

1. A page author has to have made a good page for the game.
2. Programmers have to have made the game available for play.
3. Players have to have been playing the game some place with public game records.
4. Someone has to have nominated it.
5. Someone has to have seconded it.
6. Editors have to have not vetoed it.
7. An editor has to select it from among the games that have already passed through the other levels.

This is kind of wishful thinking. Sorry, I'm not convinced. 1. is subjective, you decide what is good, 3. is not so true, see the last discussion with HG, 7. is not "an editor", it is you. Etc.

But, never mind, keep going if you like.

Just a comment. As being the big boss of that process, you should refrain from having your own games in it. Sorry to say, but it's obvious.

1. is subjective

No, it's a matter of whether a page meets standards. It's not like evaluating the aesthetic worth of a painting or a piece of music. For Sac Chess, I brought its page up to standards before featuring it.

3. is not so true, see the last discussion with HG

Can you elaborate or link?

7. is not "an editor", it is you.

I am an editor, and other editors could if they took the initiative.

As being the big boss of that process, you should refrain from having your own games in it. Sorry to say, but it's obvious.

It's not obvious, because it's a multi-tier selection process that is not controlled by a single individual. Like everyone else, I cannot nominate or second my own games, and I have not done that. Also, it would be unfair to the people who did nominate and second my games to disqualify them. In fact, you nominated Gross Chess, and two other people seconded it before I featured it. In selecting games for a particular month, I have also factored in how many people had favorited them, and at that time, Gross Chess was favorited by more people than any other game that had been nominated and seconded. It was on this basis that I featured it ahead of some other games that had also been nominated and seconded. Since then, I have featured other games in the order of how many people have favorited them. The only more favorited game I've featured since then has been Chu Shogi, which had not yet been seconded at the time.

Additionally, because I have been making the final selection, I have been refraining from seconding games, and until recently, I have not nominated any game. Nominating and seconding games as much as others have would give me too much control over the process. So, I normally leave those steps of the process up to others. If I gave myself this power, then I would have seconded and featured Metamachy, but I don't want to diminish the control that others have over the process.

Because the CVP is probably the only common chess variant source, I would like to think of variants being featured just as a sign of recognition, nothing more. If a game is popular enough, and/or has some weight on its own, it can be featured. With repeats being acceptable, that will be the most trivial way of managing this feature.

I would like to think of variants being featured just as a sign of recognition, nothing more.

It's about more than just recognizing a game. It's also about showcasing a well-presented page for a game that has already received some favorable recognition and is available to be played by the person visiting the page.

If a game is popular enough, and/or has some weight on its own, it can be featured. With repeats being acceptable, that will be the most trivial way of managing this feature.

Trivial, but not as participatory. The present system avoids concentrating too much power in the hands of one person. However, if we run out of eligible games that have been nominated and seconded, it would be fair to feature an eligible game that has shown other signs of popularity, such as being favorited or played a lot. In this case, though, I should be restricted from picking one of my own variants. I also suppose that if no games have been seconded, but some have been nominated, I should give priority to those if any are eligible.

There definitely should be quality standards on the presentation here, and it is important there is sufficient suport. If there is no way to play the variant on-line or against an AI, attracting attention to it becomes a pointless exercise.

But this need not be given much weight in the selection process, as it often can be provided easily within days after the selection is made. In this respect the selection process is badly flawed: rather than judging by the support situation as it could be when we make the selection, say, a week in advance, we judge by the situation as it is. This has the unfortunate side effect that it will also never lead to improvement of what we have, just to rejection. If there are 20 variants amongst the candidates that fail to meet the requirement of a computer opponent, there will be no incentive to provide one if there is no guarantee it will be featured.

For games like HectoChess, with no unorthodox rules other than the piece moves, computer opponents that play them can be created in a matter of minutes, with the aid of configurable variant engines like Fairy-Max, Sjaak II, Nebiyu or Fairy-Stockfish. If you use guestimated piece values (as ZoG would do anyway). Creating rule-enforcing GC presets is also only a matter of minutes for such variants, with the aid of the Play-Test Applet.

I think we should seriously consider providing downloads of configuration files for these stronger engines, rather than ZRF files that almost no one can use. That we don't do that for HectoChess is a missed opportunity.

If there are 20 variants amongst the candidates that fail to meet the requirement of a computer opponent, there will be no incentive to provide one if there is no guarantee it will be featured.

If that's true, then it's a wonder how anyone has previously found the incentive to program any game at all. Yet we somehow have almost a 1000 pages featuring games programmed for Zillions-of-Games, not to mention various other programs and Interactive Diagrams for playing various Chess variants. Clearly, interest in playing a game has sometimes provided people with the incentive to provide computer opponents. And, in fact, the availability of a computer opponent serves as a sign of interest in the peer-review process. So, if someone would be motivated to program a game only if it were guaranteed to be featured, that does not seem to suggest much interest in the game. I would think that if someone wished a game to be featured, he would also be interested in having it programmed, regardless of whether we featured it. Also, it should be evident that making a computer opponent available takes a game one step closer to being eligible, and once a game is eligible, it has a better chance of being featured than it previously had.

For games like HectoChess, with no unorthodox rules other than the piece moves, computer opponents that play them can be created in a matter of minutes, with the aid of configurable variant engines like Fairy-Max, Sjaak II, Nebiyu or Fairy-Stockfish. If you use guestimated piece values (as ZoG would do anyway). Creating rule-enforcing GC presets is also only a matter of minutes for such variants, with the aid of the Play-Test Applet.

One of the main reasons behind our lack of support for Duck Chess is that it is a multi-move variant, and these are trickier to program on Game Courier. Nevertheless, I have programmed multi-move variants for it before, and I have a tutorial on How to Program Multi-Move Variants for Game Courier. Someone with sufficient interest in Duck Chess should be able to follow the tutorial and program the game. Although it would be easy to program for Zillions-of-Games, it would seem that the people who are most interested in it do not use Zillions-of-Games. You have hinted that you don't use it, and Duck Chess is mainly available on other platforms.

I think we should seriously consider providing downloads of configuration files for these stronger engines, rather than ZRF files that almost no one can use

There is no need to do one instead of the other when we can do both. Personally, I have no experience creating configuration files for stronger engines. But if others are able to do it, we can allow them to. Many people use Zillions-of-Games, and even if you don't, the ZRF files are for those who do.

I can follow your reasoning.

I personally have a clear interest in being able to play my variants on Game Courier, or to make them available. But what happens if the author can't manage the programming?

I would like to play 'Conquer' and my interest is to see how potential opponents cope with the variant. I'm not interested in being nominated for 'Featured Chess Variants', but there is still a certain challenge.

What can you tell candidates like me about it?

But what happens if the author can't manage the programming?

Then it is a point in favor of a game if someone else takes enough interest in it to program it. If the inventor cannot program himself, he can try to get a programmer interested in his game. It also helps to describe the rules in precise and exacting detail in a manner that covers every contingency, because a programmer has to account for everything that could happen in a game even when it doesn't happen.

Sounds good, but it doesn't help much.

If I see it right, it all comes down to a certain amount of randomness.

There are some who can do everything, so to speak, and others who try to get by. Somewhat distributed chances, in my opinion.

Perhaps also an aspect of the selection for 'Featured Chess Variants'.

I have created a details section on the page about nominations and seconds. It's at the bottom, and you have to click on it to view it. I went through the comments and listed the games I found nominated or seconded, and I linked people's names to their comments. I used ibid to refer back to the same comment instead of repeating the link. I also added information on who nominated or seconded each of the featured games. Contrary to what I recently said, I did second one game early in the process.

If I see it right, it all comes down to a certain amount of randomness.

There are some who can do everything, so to speak, and others who try to get by. Somewhat distributed chances, in my opinion.

That's a part of life. We don't all have the same capabilities or inclinations. Personally, I'm not skilled at PR, I don't play my games as much as other people play theirs, and I've never written a game engine.

That's a part of life. We don't all have the same capabilities or inclinations. 

Well, I am old enough to have come to the same realization.  But unequal opportunities can't mean losing the goal. Your opinion was that you had to interest an editor or programmer to get an internet-based solution. With my last variants, this was possible on my own thanks to H.G.'s 'Pay Test Applet' - also regarding the implementation in Game Courier. But in the case of Conquer, H.G. wrote:

The XBetza notation does support 'unloading' the captured piece there with the aid of the u modifier, but there is no provision for flipping its color. So additional JavaScript embedded in the page was needed for that, and this cannot be converted to GAME code by the Applet (even if it would have been pasted into it, which it is not).

I suppose we could decide to make uu mean color-flipped unload in XBetza. But that would then have to be implemented in the ID, as well as in the GAME-code include file. It is unlikely this will be done any time soon.

I don't think it would be possible to implement the function performed by the additional JavaScript in the generated GAME code by post-editing the latter.

I think his description has rather less to do with unequal chances. Keeping a captured piece in play on the square from which the capturer came from with simultaneous color reversal doesn't seem to have played a role in implementing the feature by default so far.

Well, as I said, it is perfectly possible to create a Game Courier preset through which people can play the game on line without any programming. The only minor shortcoming in that case would be that it doesn't enforce rules, and thus cannot be used by players that are bent on cheating. I believe that most GC presets are actually of this type.

The problem with the uu proposal is that in the script for the Interactive Diagram I am running out of bits for indicating the properties of the leg of a move, so that it would require a rather large redesign. I could implement a temporary non-general fix in GAME-code include file, though: define a parameter that could be set to force color flipping on all unloads. Since unloading hardly ever occurs in any variant, putting some extra complexity in the part of the code that handles it would not cause any slowdown of other presets.

In that case one could simply generate GAME code from an ID that defined the XBetza moves with a single u for unloading the captured piece in the original color, and set this extra parameter to 1 in the Pre-Game code.

[Edit] Since there is no checking rule in Conquer, it seems simpler to automate it through the Play-Test Applet just like it is normal Chess, and set the parameter checkrule to 0 at the end of the Pre-Game section. And then add a few lines of custom code at the end of the Post-Move sections for automatically placing the color-flipped capture victim on the square of origin.

it is perfectly possible to create a Game Courier preset through which people can play the game on line without any programming.

Someone may certainly do that to meet the requirement that the game has a demonstrable history of being played.

Someone may certainly do that to meet the requirement that the game has a demonstrable history of being played.

From the point of view of a user who considers himself lucky when professionals help him to play a variant online, the comment is difficult to understand.

From the point of view of a user who considers himself lucky when professionals help him to play a variant online, the comment is difficult to understand.

Game Courier can be used simply as an online set of equipment without any rule enforcement programmed into it. This allows people to play a game as they would with physical equipment if they were playing face-to-face, meaning it is up to them to know and abide by the rules themselves. This makes Game Courier useful for playing games that cannot be programmed, and it allows non-programmers to play their games without getting them programmed. For the purposes of building a demonstrable history of people playing the game, having the game programmed for Game Courier is not required. However, it is still desirable to have a game programmed.

So that it is easier to evaluate games that have been nominated, I have added links for pages that have them. You will find these in the Nominations & Seconds details section at the bottom of this page. If you nominated any games without giving the links for them, please check that the links match the game you nominated.

The announcement on some pages (including the Featured Variants page) uses black font in the black box, which doesn't make it very readable.

This is a problem with pages that use /g/globalindex.css instead of /g/global.css. In examining the two files, the relevant CSS seems to be the same. And when using Web Developer Tools in Firefox to examine the actual CSS in use, the page with /g/globalindex.css says the color is rgb(0, 0, 0), and the one that works right says the color is rgb(245, 245, 220). When I double-click on each color value, I get the same results with just a difference in file name and line numbers. Each says that the best match is beige for .blackbox, and the parent match is plum for .notice. When I added an !important to the plum color in notice, it said the best match was plum in .notice, but it still displayed the text as black. So, I don't know why it is displaying the text as black. While switching pages to /g/global.css would fix the problem on a page-by-page level, I would like to fix it in the CSS file, which I don't know how to do short of making both files identical.

I got rid of the table, and that fixed the problem. For some reason I could not identify, the table was throwing off the CSS.

I second Metamachy. It is a solid game with some interesting and rather unique twists on the normal Chess rules.

I also second Tenjiku Shogi. This game is a perfect example of the craziness that particularly imaginative authors can come up with, while still being fun to play.

Time to nominate sth? I think it'd be great to feature Seiregi!

Remember to link to nominations.

This one. One of the very first variants that I tried to play.

Remember to also name the variant you are nominating. Don't just say this one with a link.

The following games have been both nominated and seconded. To save time, I am copying HTML from this page, deleting what hasn't been seconded yet, and replacing ibid where appropriate.

• Metamachy (N: Edward Webb, S: A. M. DeWitt)
• Tenjiku Shogi (N: H. G. Muller, S: A. M. DeWitt)
• Duck Chess (N: ibid, S: Jean-Louis Cazaux)
• Singularity Chess (N: Max Kovel, S: H. G. Muller)
• Shatranj of Troy (N: Daniel Zacharias, S: H. G. Muller)

Of these, Metamachy and Tenjiku Shogi meet the qualifications. I could not find any records of past games for Duck Chess. Singularity Chess doesn't have a page here. Although Shatranj of Troy is programmed for Zillions-of-Games and has been played on Game Courier, it has not to my knowledge been programmed for online play.

For other games that have been nominated, check the Nominations & Seconds section at the bottom of the page. Note that this is a Details section that will not show up unless you click on it.

I actually am going to throw in my seconding of Opulent Lemurian Shatranj.

I would like to also nominate Grant Acedrex.

I actually am going to throw in my seconding of Opulent Lemurian Shatranj.

I noted this on the page, but it is currently not qualified, because it has not been programmed for online or computer play.

Metamachy is the featured variant for December, 2023.

I plan to propose a revised version of the old page for this game and also make an ID and a GC.

I propose Chak to be a Featured CV in next months.

Does anyone want to second anything before the month is over? Of the games that have been nominated and seconded, each has problems.

• The Jocly version of Tenjiku Shogi is not working, and the 2D images for it are not complete.
• Duck Chess doesn't have a recorded history of play.
• Opulent Lemurian Shatranj has only been programmed as an interactive diagram. It has not been programmed for online correspondence play.
• Shatranj of Troy has been programmed only for Zillions-of-Games. It has not been programmed for online correspondence play.

I'll second Odin's Rune and Elven Chess.

I'm thinking of featuring Ultima in January, but I'll wait and see if another eligible game has more support tomorrow morning. I was thinking of Marseillais Chess or Chieftain Chess, but I need to fix the Game Courier presets for those.

I second Paco Shako. It's a rather unique take on the classic game.

I also second Kyoto Shogi. It's a unique game with mechanics not seen very often in Chess variants.

Grant Acedrex. I thought I had seconded it. https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/grantacedrex

I'll echo Grant Acedrex and Paco Shako.

The Jocly version of Tenjiku Shogi is not working, and the 2D images for it are not complete.

What about it is not working? It is working for me, both on my own website and on CVP. It participated in last year's Tenjiku Shogi correspondence championship, and even won a game there.

You are right about the 2D images; at the time I implemented it Jocly just did not have enough different 2D images to satisfy the need of Tenjiku Shogi. But it is not difficult to fix that. I could either create a complete set of bare-kanji pieces (of the same type I used for regular Shogi), or use the fairy-sprites file from the latest version of Jocly, which has many more pieces, some very suitable. (Dedicated images for the jumping and normal generals.)

• Duck Chess doesn't have a recorded history of play.

AFAIK it’s playable on not only pychess.org with not big audience, but also on chess.com with very large community. There’re many games played already.

I also second Kyoto Shogi. It's a unique game with mechanics not seen very often in Chess variants.

I also second it. Btw it’s playable on lishogi.org since this June.

UPD: I second Grant Acedrex and Ultima as well as Kyoto. How many games can I second?

you should wait until you have a complete set of bare-kanji pieces and dedicated fairy icon set ( and/or a Mnemonic set) before promoting the game, it will make a better first impression for new players.

AFAIK it’s playable on not only pychess.org with not big audience, but also on chess.com with very large community. There’re many games played already.

That’s my understanding too. But I have not found any record of past games on either site.

How many games can I second?

We haven’t put a limit on that.

What about it is not working?

When I click on a piece in Firefox, it doesn't show me its legal moves or allow me to move. It does work in Edge, though it responds slowly.

I just noticed that in Firefox, it was letting me move the pieces on the far side of the board. Then I rotated it.

Since I don't know how pieces move in Tenjiku Shogi, I don't know if this is a bug. But in each game I played on Jocly, it quickly beat me by moving out a piece that checks the King along a diagonal with four of my pieces between the King and the enemy piece. The piece has a General character in the lower part, but I'm not sure what the upper character is. It looks like it was originally two ranks ahead of its King in the same file. It would be helpful to include a description of the pieces for Tenjiku Shogi so that players have a better idea of what is going on.

I have added the new seconds to the list. The three games with the most support are not currently eligible. Although Grant Acedrex has a Game Courier preset, it has not yet been used to play it. Perhaps the people in support of it could start playing games of it together. The pages for Kyoto Shogi and Paco Shako have no information on online play or any record of past games.

Among games that just got one second, Elven Chess and Odin's Rune Chess are not eligible, because their Game Courier presets are not programmed. This leaves Ultima, which has now been seconded, as the most eligible game with a nomination and a second. So, I will feature Ultima for January, 2024.

Anyway, Ultima largely deserves it. I take the point on Grant Acedrex, you are right.

But in each game I played on Jocly, it quickly beat me by moving out a piece that checks the King along a diagonal with four of my pieces between the King and the enemy piece.

That is no bug, just implementation of the rules. Tenjiku Shogi has some pieces pieces that can jump over arbitrary many others to capture. By moving a Pawn out of the way such a piece (the 'Vice General') immediately threatens a smothered mate. There is only one way to prevent that mate, covering the mating square with your Soaring Eagle.

There is an article on Tenjiku Shogi that describes how the pieces move. What would be the point of duplicating that information? Knowing how the pieces move might be a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one to become a good Tenjiku-Shogi player. If you don't know any opening theory, you will be slaughtered in a few moves by someone that does.

I just noticed that in Firefox, it was letting me move the pieces on the far side of the board. Then I rotated it.

I think this is a general Jocly bug. Sometimes the board starts reversed for no apparent reason, or the white pieces might look in the wrong direction. Flipping the view twice usually cures that.

In Shogi variants this is of course very non-obvious, as white and black pieces look identical there.

There is an article on Tenjiku Shogi that describes how the pieces move. What would be the point of duplicating that information?

It helps to have a reference on hand that uses the same graphics as the person is playing with. Providing this is a common practice for both Game Courier and other Jocly games, and the article on the game does not do this. That article features mnemonic pieces with Betza code describing how they move, followed by descriptions of some pieces without any pictures of them.

It helps to have a reference on hand that uses the same graphics as the person is playing with. Providing this is a common practice for both Game Courier and other Jocly games, and the article on the game does not do this.

The Jocly page on Cavalier Chess does not have that... Or Grand Cavalier Chess. Or Grotesque Chess. Or Univers Chess...

It might be fine for a modest variant with only one or two regular fairy pieces, such as Capablanca Chess. But it is an illusion that anyone would be able to play a game as complex as Tenjiku Shogi without first thoroughly studying the rules, just by having a 'cheat sheet' at hand.

The pages for Kyoto Shogi and Paco Shako have no information on online play or any record of past games.

Kyoto Shogi has recorded history of play at least here.

The Jocly page on Cavalier Chess does not have that... Or Grand Cavalier Chess. Or Grotesque Chess. Or Univers Chess

These do all have a written description of the rules, which Tenjiku Shogi does not have. They also have fewer pieces, and they use a more familiar piece design that makes it easier to tell what is what. With a bunch of unfamiliar pieces in Kanji, a western player will normally need an illustrated piece-by-piece guide to the pieces.

My iPad is not letting me copy the rest. But one of the ways of studying the rules of a game is to consult a cheat sheet while playing a computer opponent like the one on Jocly.

The problem is that a written description of the rules for Tenjiku Shogi would be so long that it would only be accessible through extensive scrolling. And it that case having it on the same page is worse than having it on a separate page to which you can easily switch back and forth.

Mind you, I don't want to argue that the Jocly presentation of Tenjiku Shogi cannot be improved. But it is just not in the same class as 8x8 variants with 6 piece types. It has 37 piece types, many with unusual moves (double captures and such). To be of any use an aid for the uninitiated should be a lot more advanced than a conventional cheat sheet.

Western players would probably best play with a pictogram representation rather than kanji. (And the 2d representation in Jocly will have to be fixed to provide that opportunity.) And the Tenjiku article should have an Interactive Diagram that can be switched between several piece representations, including a 2-kanji representation. And perhaps there should be a Jocly 3d representation with mnemonic pieces.

The problem is that a written description of the rules for Tenjiku Shogi would be so long that it would only be accessible through extensive scrolling.

The Game Courier preset has an illustrated piece-by-piece guide that spans four screens on my HD monitor. But it wastes a lot of space using only two columns when many piece descriptions are short. Using flex or grid, it could fit the information into more columns. In fact, the first screen is mainly pieces that don't promote, and these could be handled more compactly as a group of pieces without promoted versions.

Western players would probably best play with a pictogram representation rather than kanji.

Certainly. I normally play Shogi with the Motif or Symbolic pieces, which use pictographic images from sets for Chess on Shogi wedges. Large Shogi variants like this one would benefit from a set with Alfaerie images on wedges.

This leaves Ultima, which has now been seconded, as the most eligible game with a nomination and a second. So, I will feature Ultima for January, 2024.

If it’s featured, it should have a banner image:

Opulent Lemurian Shatranj has only been programmed as an interactive diagram. It has not been programmed for online correspondence play.

I found the Game Courier preset for OLS here, by the way, with logs for past games here.

Opulent Lemurian Shatranj has only been programmed as an interactive diagram. It has not been programmed for online correspondence play.

I found the Game Courier preset for OLS here, by the way, with logs for past games here.

I didn't say there wasn't a preset for it. I said it hasn't been programmed for online correspondence play. This preset is unprogrammed.

Among the games that have been seconded, none qualify for being featured. Would someone like to nominate or second some qualified games?

If Symmetric Chess qualifies, I'll nominate that CV.

If Symmetric Chess qualifies, I'll nominate that CV.

It does, and I've added your nomination to the page.

In the meantime, I've been considering Marseillais Chess. I fixed up the sample games to work with Game Courier's new JavaScript-aided way of navigating through the moves of a game, and I think these would be good for drawing attention to what Game Courier can do now.

I'll wait until morning in case our European members, who may be asleep now, want to add some nominations or seconds.

Maybe Kyoto Shogi?

Maybe Kyoto Shogi?

You already seconded it, and I did already say that none of the seconded games qualify. Its page is lacking anything about being programmed for online play, having a game history available, or even just playing it online.