[ 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 Secutor Chess. Introducing the Secutor piece, and new collision-capture, on a Gustavian board (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]H. G. Muller wrote on 2021-05-13 UTC satellite=secu files=10 ranks=8 promoZone=1 promoChoice=QNBRS graphicsDir=/graphics.dir/alfaeriePNG/ squareSize=50 graphicsType=png useMarkers=1 hole::::a2-a7,j2-j7 pawn:P:ifmnDfmWfceF:pawn:b2-i2,,b7-i7 knight:N:N:knight:a1,j1,,a8,j8 bishop:B:B:bishop:d1,g1,,d8,g8 rook:R:R:rook:b1,i1,,b8,i8 queen:Q:Q:queen:e1,,e8 secutor:S:mRgabyabscR:champion:c1,h1,,c8,h8 king:K:KisjO2isjO3:king:f1,,f8 Secutor Chess Kevin Pacey wrote on 2018-03-01 UTCGood ★★★★Interesting variant that stars the secutor piece type, and the Gustavian board (i.e. extra corner squares). Seems to deserve to be played more often on Game Courier. I'd estimate the Secutor to be worth about a Chinese Cannon - so about half a chess rook, or 5.5/2=2.75. Charles Gilman wrote on 2006-10-08 UTC Charles Gilman wrote on 2006-10-04 UTCI've just realised, you don't need to upload images at all, when you already have them on your own website. If you click 'edit content', and paste into the 'setup' section the FULL address for the images from your OWN website, they should show up just as well as if they had been uploaded. Andy wrote on 2006-10-02 UTC'Of course, it will take time to understand these pieces. Perhaps they will never become popular. But, regardless, it's fun to try something new. At least it's interesting to investigate their properties.' Agree. Was only speaking for myself when said I find them difficult. Certainly make good problem pieces, and good game pieces for those who can visualize them well. Andy wrote on 2006-10-02 UTCSam, perhaps you missed the fact that my sentences start with 'I'. I was giving my experiences with these pieces, and I did so in civil manner. If a person having opinion is not acceptable to you, then start your own website and disallow opinion. Perhaps you also failed to see that I also gave M. Winther positive feedback on other variants of his. In my opinion you are the one doing trolling. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2006-10-02 UTCAndy criticizing a chess variant?? Who would have guessed! He is, at least, predictable. Personally, I'd rather see Andy spend his time figuring out how to do a queen vs. king and king mate on a Gustavian board than troll here on chessvariants.org, but that it just my opinion. - Sam M Winther wrote on 2006-10-02 UTCBut collision movement, and bounce-movement, were designed to be wholly intuitive, coinciding with physical laws (cannon-jumps might be more difficult however). When a billiard ball 'collides' orthogonally with another ball, it will continue in one of two diagonal directions (or come to a halt). It also collides against the margin and then continues in another direction. Likewise 'bouncing' occurs when the piece bounces off in the alignment direction (against another piece), like in a pinball game. Of course, it will take time to understand these pieces. Perhaps they will never become popular. But, regardless, it's fun to try something new. At least it's interesting to investigate their properties. Mats Andy wrote on 2006-10-02 UTCI find bifurcation pieces to be nonintuitive and not easy to visualize. I find it hard to develop sense of position with these type of pieces on board. Of M Winther's games I am familiar with, best are Mammoth and Mastodon family which are very good games, complex yet elegant. M Winther wrote on 2006-10-02 UTCI cannot upload any images, I get an error, so I could not write an article. But my bifurcation pieces would really need an overview article. Some of these pieces are good, I think. Mats Charles Gilman wrote on 2006-10-02 UTCAs someone whose recent comment on a variant of my own was sympathetic to the views of the anonymous contributor I should perhaps point out that I was not that contributor. If you are sure that your number of variants will remain small, then fine. On the other hand, if you eventually invent as many as I have and want a page for each, it will make things unwieldy. It might be interesting to see your existing variants grouped by board shape, and certainly would to see an article giving an overview of the new pieces - http://www.chessvariants.org/index/mainquery.php?type=Piece&orderby=LinkText lists the kind of pages I mean. Another small point: the pop-up when the page linked to is opened is annoying. A point about the problem in uploading images: yes, I am suffering from that as well, but only with board of too complex a shape for ffen diagrams to deal with, which is not the case with this lot. Adding ffen diagrams would certainly make it easier to view and judge the variants. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2006-09-22 UTCThis is the second time when the essential issue about whether the opinion of a chess variant inventor or some anonymous entity posting here is more important. Personally, I have very little respect for the kind of people who post anonymously or pseudo-anonymously on internet discussion forums, complaining about things. While I agree that Mats Winter was a little rude in his 'shup up' comment, I also feel that the comment was warranted. Someone came here and anonymously posted that all of Mats' variants deserve only one page. Mats was legitimately hurt. We know nothing about the anonymous person who said this comment; when people are allowed to post anonymously negative, hurtful things, people who are offering legitimate things, such as Mats, are put off and may end up leaving the site. Anonymous trolls are very dangerous to internet discussion forums. They can very well chase off anyone who isn't a troll, destroying the forum. I saw trolls destroy Usenet, I saw trolls destroy Slashdot, I've seen them seriously damage Wikipedia, and I'm seeing them destroy Digg. I'm worried that they may start coming here and destroy the quality of this web site. I think the policy of approving anonymous posts is an excellent one; I think it is what has saved chessvariants.org so far. Again, this is a forum for Chess Variant inventors, not for anonymous trolls to flame Chess Variant inventors. I hope it stays that way. - Sam Andy wrote on 2006-09-22 UTCThere is big difference between politely asking 'wouldn't it make more sense' (directly quote) and telling people they have inferiority complex and telling them shut up. M Winther wrote on 2006-09-22 UTC(Thanks Jeremy) Andy says that I am 'extremely rude', but he has no complaints about the anonymous poster who tries to convince the editors to remove my chess variants and merely allow me one page. Talk about rudeness! Obviously this person is a regular visitor to this page, otherwise he wouldn't have visited the 'What's New' page and expressed this kind of view. It doesn't speak to his advantage that he chooses to remain anonymous when criticising others. Jeremy Good wrote on 2006-09-22 UTCMats, I'm generally thankful for the work you do here, you know that. Keep up the good work. Andy wrote on 2006-09-22 UTCI read entire post and found arguments interesting until I read 'people with inferiority complexes ought to shut up' which is extremely rude and is very poor way to try to win debate. Such insult should not be posted here. M Winther wrote on 2006-09-22 UTCHow about thanking me for the work I put down, instead? I decided to abandon this forum to avoid being hacked on. Obviously it didn't help. In fact, I have lately been been using four board types: Gustavian, H-board, the 80-squared board, and the standard board. The reason why I link externally is because I cannot upload any files because of some error. Even though I have created many new interesting pieces this is regarded as so unimportant so I shouldn't be allowed more than one little external link page. It is astoundingly ungenerous! I do not simply add a new piece to a board arbitrarely. All my variants have been tested to create the setup which is the most strategically many-sided. Many setups simply don't work. I have also created new graphics. I have introduced these pieces in a regular piece context so it's easier to get a feel for them, and decide upon the piece-value of the new piece. All the games have a different character, and they work very fine. My idea is that the new pieces can later be inserted in other more unusual contexts, with several different piece types. Namik Sade has already begun doing this work, in two new games, as far as I know. By using my programs you can decide whether you like the piece, and whether it's suitable in your own game construct. I have endeavoured to create pieces (I have discarded several) which function well together with the Western piece set. As their piece-value seem to rhyme with the traditional pieces, they can be mutually exchanged, something which greatly increases the combinative, and strategical, possibilities. I suspect this aspect has received too little attention in many game constructs. One should not simply add many pieces to a board without investigating their relations, in terms of value. The game could become cramped an uninteresting, because the pieces must often avoid each other, and the combinative and strategical possibilities are thereby reduced. Those people, like 'none' (a suitable name), who think that my games are not innovative enough, simply don't understand chess. What makes a chess variant interesting is what goes on *under* the surface, in terms of interesting combinations, endgame qualities, and strategical brainteasers. With these new pieces new forms of combinations are introduced to the chessboard, which have never occured before in chess history. Such aspects decide whether a game has original and striking characteristics, and not whether it appears, on the surface, to be innovative. If you create a game on a star-shaped board, for instance, and put many unusual pieces on it, this does not necessarily mean that it's a genuinely innovative variant. I am convinced that my variants are good games, but it should be possible to create even better games by introducing these new pieces in other contexts. That's for other innovators to ponder over. Moreover, it's likely that the new methods of movement, the bounce-movement, the collision-capture, two leg cannon capture, etc., can stimulate yet more piece-types. In Doublebarrel Chess I introduce practical new rules for introducing a pair of extra pieces to the standard board. My contributions should stimulate game constructors, and fairy problem composers, while people with inferiority complexes ought to shut up. Greg Strong wrote on 2006-09-21 UTCIt seems reasonable to me to have one page for each game. If people playtest these games and post their opinions, it would be more convenient to have the comments grouped together on a page for the appropriate game. Anonymous wrote on 2006-09-21 UTCSeeing as M Winther's string of variants all use the same board and the same rules and simply substitute new pieces wouldn't it make more sense to have one page for all these games, especially considering that they are all external links to his website. Just my 2 cents. 19 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.