Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Latrunculi duo milia et septum. Chess with rook/ferz & bishop/wazir substitutes for rooks and bishops.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Thu, Jul 1, 2010 09:27 PM UTC:
Thanks for the questions.
The knight is a normal knight. This game simply replaces rooks and bishops with their associated promoted cousins from Shogi (Dragon King and Dragon Horse).
Yes, they can capture with their Shogi-like move.
Of interest to me is the idea of doubling bishops, or throwing in the queen to have a 3-power diagonal power strike.

Anonymous wrote on Thu, Jul 1, 2010 08:51 AM UTC:
There are many games, wich adds king's moves to standart pieces (differences: are these moves capturing or not and have knight these moves).

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 11:56 PM UTC:
Latrunculi was given a poor rating for 6 reasons or points.  Now it seems that the poor rating is reduced to one point being, 'simply because the full piece mix was used before, without even acknowlegement.'   

A point of confusion is that I acknowledged Shogi (from where I borrowed the R+f and B+w pieces.  But in an attempt to please someone I also added acknowledgement to Duke of Rutlands which is a 10 x 14 board game. The 140 square game has pieces I do not use in the 64 square Latrunculi.  It has  Concubine; Rook; Bishop.  Latrunculi has none of these and uses a standard chess board.  The two games are hardly anything alike.  I've played Duke of Rutlands, I like it.  I never even thought of it while making Latrunculi... I did think of promoted Shogi pieces.

Many games use pieces that have been used before.  Look at Chessgi. Look at The Logical Follow Up to the Duke of Rutlands (isn't that far closer to that game than is Latrunculi?) Look at Fischer Random Chess, Avalanche Chess, Maxima compared to Ultima, etc.  Look at Gothic Chess (my goodness, that one just has 2 pieces in a different position from the game it is based on).  

I have not seen this Latrunculi before.  Yes, it uses pieces we know about.  I admit it.  I admit I invented none of them.  It is a variant... we can expect that to mean it varies from something but is otherwise similar in certain respects.

Now, on a different note, I read in the recent comment, 'There are no 6-point criteria. That's silly.'  So, I guess that means Latrunculi was judeged 'poor' the first time due to 'silly criteria.' 

The Latrunculi comment preceding this one has a lot of text to it.  I could reply to all of it.  But why?  What good would it do?  In fact, I thought we had all this variant stuff out of the wash and out to dry.  I guess not.

Some basics regarding my variant - there was a complaint about references... so I added them.  There was a complaint about not discussing the Latin meaning, so I added that... neither, of which, affect game play.  Game play, interestingly enough, was not discussed.  And you think that would be important. 

How I see it:  Latrunculi duo milia et septum is a new variant that uses previously known pieces on a previously known 8x8 board.  It is a new game and has a right to exist.  Should we find that it already exists we can remove my rules and rename the pre-set.  But I have a very strong feeling that we won't find a pre-existing version.

Hopefully we can close the door on this one.  It is obvious that myself and another have strong disagreements about this game.  Can we not just admit that we disagree and leave it at that?

George Duke wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 07:23 PM UTC:
One of 400 CVs Rated, Latrunculi gets Poor simply because the full piece mix was used before, without even acknowlegement, in Logical Follow-up to Duke of Rutland's: (RFerz),N,(BWazir),Q,K,P. Period. There are no 6-point criteria. That's silly. There are not even so few as 16 or 36 factors on checklist in rating. Are there 100 factors? More like several hundred. Below 1/2 the LargeCVs, anyone can read Comments mostly 2003-2005 by 'GWD' evaluating in long-term survey. The deliberative criteria from value-statements already made about 300 Large and 100 other CVs are variously ad hoc, heuristic, eclectic. We reach into our toolbag on a case basis to show an honest appraisal. Piece-type density, piece density, power density, originality, complete Rules, extent of Drawishness, supporting problem themes, cultural resonances, no channelled openings, value-added. These Comments are conscientiously to reject JJoyce's doctrine of re-inventing the wheel -- directly related to likes of Latrunculi. Joyce has said for year that it is not so important whether a deviser recreates a form used before. To contrary, we think it is incumbent to make every effort to find all relevant prior art and meanwhile postpone publishing. Our position is supported by Fergus Duniho's 'Marshall' article, then directed at overuse of (RN) and (BN) without knowledge of prior uses. Altogether thus our opinion that bad precedent and example, for newcomers especially, this Latrunculi. That's all, not so big a deal. It does not criticize GGifford's adequate Chess work elsewhere, nor do we particularly reach out for agreement from the majority here(extreme minority elsewhere) propounding 'proliferation' as their ideal.

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2007 07:20 PM UTC:
My name and this game was mentioned in a recent Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants comment for some reason and so was my reply to it. But it really doesn't belong over there. So I've moved it to here. Regarding this game, G. Duke stated: 'We imagine then that Gifford has some technique to single out R-Ferz and B-Wazir on 8x8 as particularly of high quality, suitably screened for display separately.' I must admit I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I sense negativity. I honestly don't know why there should be negativity. As for my technique regarding the recent game, I did not go through pieces to see what to replace a Rook and Bishop with in Chess to create Latrunculi duo milia et septum. Joe Joyce had discussed new pieces in relation to Fide and an 8x8 board game and it occurred to me that R+F and B+W (though I was thinking in terms of promoted Shogi pieces) would be fine replacements... very good replacements. It is not to say they are the best pieces. Indeed, Chess is fine as it is. I do not believe that Latrunculi or myself should get any pat on the back. Nor, however, do I believe either has earned negativity or comments of 'poor' though if that be someone's honest opinion, fine... they are entitled to it. The new variant is simply a new variant with a pre-set. I believe we can use the pre-set to prove it to be an exciting variant. With that being said, best regards to all.

George Duke wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2007 04:28 PM UTC:
With more CVs every year, standards rise for responsibility on part of Inventors to research their work's prior art readily available on this site, in DPritchard's ECV(both editions), patent search engines, and so on. CVPage's new form asks how your idea differs from similar productions for that reason. Historical 18th-century Duke of Rutland's citing references is patently absurd. Thanks for adding the citations, but we think the idea for (B+W) and (R+F) on 8x8 is simply not new and so will try to uncover those prior uses we remember.

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2007 01:57 AM UTC:
George: Thank you for taking the time to comment.  I added a quote from you to the game notes, that being: 'As far back as Duke of Rutland's Chess year 1747 exists use of Crowned Rook(Rook+Ferz), and Logical Follow-up to Duke of Rutland's Chess recently has the Crowned Bishop(Bishop+Wazir).'

I do not see any good logic, however, to your rating the game as poor.  A thousand pages of citations and references would not change the dynamics of the game one iota.  I based the pieces on Shogi pieces... which I did mention.  And now I have added your citation.  Has the game improved because of that?  No. 

By your own logic [which I disagree with] many games would seem to be poor, including the Duke of Rutland's game.  Why, because it too lacks citations.  

You mention I have given 'No analysis, no justification, no game scores.' True, but then again, how many other CVs fall into this category?  A lot.   

The game is a simple deviation from chess, created only due to some inspiration from Joe Joyce regarding changing pieces on an 8 x 8 board.  It was not designed simply as a model for discussion in game theory... but we can discuss it in terms of Game Theory and I am sure we will not see it as 'poor.'  Instead, I believe we will find it to be dynamically rich and intellectually challenging.  But, we need to play games to prove this in practice.  I did do a rather lengthy presentation on Game Theory while obtaining my Masters Degree... I could have used this game as a model, if it existed.  As a side note, I have also studied logic and argument at the college level.  I suppose that is why I felt compelled to look at your 'logic' and argue a bit about it.

You stated , 'The inventor does not even start a game to play.'  True.  I am very busy these days: finishing up a chess book, editing the Unorthodox Openings News, writing a science fiction novel, creating chess problems on a weekly basis for Chessville, and playing in the CV tournament... plus doing things with a wife and four kids.  So, do I need to play this new game?  Would my playing it make it a better game?  Answer: No.

You also wrote, '...just throws up a Preset.'  Incorrect.  I put the preset there so the game can be played.  But, I also wrote the rules.  If I had no pre-set I imagine you would complain, 'He doesn't even give us a pre-set, so how can we play it?'  But, perhaps not.  I just can easily imagine that.

You wrote, 'Maybe it appears G Gifford only has a rather nice name [sic], 'Latrunculi' and finds any convenient embodiment as excuse to employ it.'

A nice guess, but wrong.  I suppose you are being sarcastic... regardless... the name doesn't affect the game dynamics.  I thought 'Chess 2007' did not sound as interesting as the Latin equivalent... plus, would not really be fair to the name 'Chess.'

You add, 'That one good feature, the name Latrunculi, has interesting Internet information not even attempted to be described or explained in the empty write-up.' 

Based on this comment I added this to the notes: 'Note: Collin's Latin Dictionary translates 'Chess' into the Latin 'Latrunculi.'  Elsewhere we can read that Latrunculi means 'robber-soldiers' or 'mercenaries.'   Latrunculi was actually the Roman Empire's most popular intellectual game. Many boards have been found which vary in size.  The 8 x 8 board was the most common.'

So, I added that comment... and I think it is fine to do so.  Thanks for the prompt.  But again, it does not change the actual game.

Thanks again for commenting.  Take care.

George Duke wrote on Wed, Sep 12, 2007 11:55 PM UTC:Poor ★
This is really Poor unimaginative practice in several respects. There is no effort to cite precedents of previous use. As far back as Duke of Rutland's Chess year 1747 exists use of Crowned Rook(Rook+Ferz), and Logical Follow-up to Duke of Rutland's Chess recently has the Crowned Bishop(Bishop+Wazir). There would be a dozen other prior uses easily found in the West a few of which we may add later. [ ] No analysis, no justification, no game scores. The inventor does not even start a game to play, just throws up a Preset. Maybe it appears GGifford only has a rather nice name, 'Latrunculi' and finds any convenient embodiment as excuse to employ it. That one good feature, the name Latrunculi, has interesting Internet information not even attempted to be described or explained in the empty write-up.

8 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.