Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Dragon. Missing description (9x15, Cells: 135) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2006 06:02 PM UTC:

I did not miss your point you missed mine. Game does not need to be very complex to be exciting. Go is simpler than chess but deep and very beautiful. So is Hex, Emergo, other games. Dragon is too complex for players to make long-range plans and deep combinations. It is chaotic game, serendipitous at best. It is arrogant and self-serving unscientific argument that if you do not appreciate game you did not work hard enough. You can spare us such condescension. It is also arrogant for inventor to claim that own invention is 'many times more exciting than Western or Chinese Chess' which are games that millions have devoted lifetimes to. Do you seriously think same for your game? Small handful at best will ever attempt to play Dragon and even fewer will ever play twice.

G. Nicholls wrote on Sat, Sep 9, 2006 09:53 AM UTC:

In reply to Andy: You seem to have missed my point and that is – You cannot get something for nothing -. If you want a game that is far better than the standard games of Chess (and why else are you looking on this web site) you must be prepared to put in the necessary effort to learn the rules and play enough games in order to become proficient enough to enjoy the rewards of the game. I would refer you to my other game of TigerChess, where the rules are easier to learn than those of Dragon, though the game is still many times more exciting than Western or Chinese Chess. You will, however, still need to put in a substantial amount of effort to learn and to play the game.

Andy wrote on Fri, Sep 8, 2006 03:37 AM UTC:Poor ★

I must agree with AMXRE. Game with rules too complex to let players see changes in situation more than one move ahead is not good game. Game that discourages long-range planning is poor game. It is ridiculous argument that game too complex to play cannot be rated; game that cannot be played is poor because games are meant to be played.

G. Nicholls wrote on Thu, Sep 7, 2006 08:17 PM UTC:

In reply to AMXRE: You cannot rate what you cannot play. The game of Dragon is indeed hard to learn - perhaps ten or more times so than Western or Chinese Chess. The excitement level of the game, however, is vastly greater than this and so the complexities are justified.

AMXRE wrote on Thu, Sep 7, 2006 08:47 AM UTC:BelowAverage ★★

Idon't mean to BRATE this game, but too many pieces,archery attacks and terrian fretures makes this game unplayable!

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Nov 12, 2005 11:27 PM UTC:

This is a very interesting chess variant. No other chess variant that I know of has pieces that exist purely for decoration.

G. Nicholls wrote on Mon, Nov 7, 2005 08:51 PM UTC:

Board is now uploaded - prints clearer than image on screen.

G. Nicholls wrote on Sat, Oct 1, 2005 07:01 PM UTC:

We are still trying to upload the Board. I can send the Board by email if required.