[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later Conditional Quantum Chess. You may move to two squares each turn, but only one is a real move. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Sam Trenholme wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCWow, this guy has invented a lot of variants! I guess he's in a contest with Mats Winther, Ralph Betza, and Charles Gilman to invent the most variants. I'm the opposite. I prefer quality over quantity (see the recent proliferation thread for my viewpoint on all this). - Sam M Winther wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCSam, I don't understand your enmity. Anyway, your Schoolbook Chess is not really a new invention. You have only set up the pieces differently. Comparatively, I have done a much more thorough job. I've invented new pieces, programmed and tested them, for almost every variant. This should make them quite interesting for the mathematician and chessplayer. Have you tried the Adjutant or the Correlator, yet? I have also studied the variants thoroughly enough to know that they are, in my judgement, much more playable than any Capablanca variant. These are not merely new variants, they also introduce new pieces, which make them considerably more innovative than merely a rearrangement of the Capablanca setup. You should at least be able to give me some credit for my new pieces. /Mats (zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCI like this idea. I haven't tried it yet. I might try one day. Simon Jepps wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCAverage ★★★Interesting. I'm not sure about taking your own pieces, but I like the concept. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCIt is probably less enmity and more the difficulty that those at the opposite extreme of proliferation have in recognizing the difference between proliferation and productivity. I imagine he just named the three people with the most games. Your count is over 80, and I don't know of anyone exceeding that count besides Ralph Betza and Charles Gilman. Since your games appeared here during my short absence, and I haven't looked into them yet, even I wonder if you're not a little bit of a prolificist. But at least you're programming your games and avoiding the excesses of unfettered creativity that Charles Gilman indulges in, and that it good. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCTo clarify, I meant to insult nor no harm to Mats Winther, nor to anyone else. I apologize for any misunderstanding that might have implied otherwise. I just was listing people who have made the most chess variants. That said, I think I might start a deep opening analysis of Mastodon Chess 10x10 with Donkeys. M Winther wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCSam, you are being spurious. Of course, you are not seriously going to analyse that Mastodon Chess variant, because it's a waste of time. It's equally useless as devoting time to a Capablanca variant that nobody plays. Are you going to be bitter for the rest of your life because I criticized your project? The whole point about that Mastodon variant was to create a mandala as a means of inner expression. I see to that it works and that it satisfies my criteria for a good game. But, as a whole, such constructs are expressions of psychic wholeness, a dynamic form of mandala.They are not meant to be studied and analyzed. But it's entertaining to play a game or two against the ZoG program. /Mats M Winther wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCFergus, it's not so many variants, really. Most of my variants are variations on a theme, often in the 'modest' category. In many cases the variants are very similar, but with a different extra piece. However, this makes a great difference in practical play. In nearly every variant a new piece is introduced. So I am really prolific in the creation of new pieces, introduced into variants that are guaranteed to be playable, close to standard chess. But I have not been particularly creative when it comes to variants of great originality. /Mats John Smith wrote on 2008-11-24 UTCThe reason you can take your own pieces is so you can anticipate if your opponent's capture was real, then recapture. 9 comments displayedEarlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ LaterPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.