Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 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
Hoo Mitregi. Intermediate between Mitregi itself and Dai Mitregi. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
KelvinFox wrote on Mon, Mar 25, 2019 12:35 PM UTC:

This looks like a fun variant to play. I am going to test it soon

Chris Chradle wrote on Wed, Apr 6, 2016 04:09 PM UTC:
I think, there should be a white wing on L1.

I really like your new layout, but unfortunately, there are a few slips of the pen in it.

greetings Chris

Charles Gilman wrote on Thu, Mar 1, 2007 07:06 PM UTC:
I agree that the rotated images are not ideal in that respect. The comment
reminds me of my own experience of having to remember that the word
'left' upside down means 'right' and vice versa, as in the 'Look
left' and 'Look right' signs. It is always easier to read the
upside-down one across the road than the right-way-up one hidden away at
my feet!
	A more ideal depiction would be the smaller images (but still within the
normal-sized squares) such as used at, but I like to
keep down use of computer memory and therefore make do with what the ffen
diagrams could provide. Were it possible to represent the Shogi array (to
use a very familiar example) as for example


with m standing for miniaturised and / for the latter piece shrunk and
superimposed on the former I would jump at using it. Perhaps that may
day be possible.

Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Feb 26, 2007 04:32 PM UTC:
Not even if you always get white and I tie one pawn behind my back? :-)
While I don't consider myself a veteran CVer, I'd probably pass for one
to most people, so I can't argue too much with you on learning curves.
But I think a good part of that learning curve is avoidable with more
user-friendly rules. [For me, that came about when I got people to play my
games and they made me give them simple, understandable rules, another
reason to suspect little general game play for Hoo Mitregi]. And maybe a
different piece set. I know when I see the same symbol used right side up,
upside down, sideways and inside-out, it bothers me, mostly because I'm
used to reading upside down and sideways, and I more or less automatically
'correct' what I'm seeing to right side up. This can make the diagrams
confusing as heck for me. I guess this is my point: the game itself looks
simple and nice and should play well - I might reduce the number of ranged
pieces, probably replace the forward-onlies with medium range pieces, but
that's me, not Charles, and his game looks good, once you understand it.
The learning curve is maybe more figuring out what is being said; but now
I am criticising another's rules-writing techniques and abilities, and
after some stuff I've put up, I shouldn't be saying much. As for some of
the other things you've said, I'd like to continue that discussion in
another comment.

Andy wrote on Sun, Feb 25, 2007 04:17 PM UTC:
Joe, thanks for offer to play shortrange games, but I regret must decline. Your points are clear and well considered, even I don't agree all of them. I stand by comment that this game has steep learning curve, other than for veteran CV players and designers like you. Don't forget your learning curve less steep than 99% other gamers because you are CV designer yourself. For shortrange pieces, I find balance is better, both short and long in same game. Control of ranks, files, diagonals is such big part of chess strategy. But I have not much experience in games all shortrange, so now I assume your opinion has more weight than mine. And I am not convinced Charles Gilman analyzes games well enough before releasing. He releases too too many games many of them weird boards and weird pieces and too many pieces, he can't give all games full analysis needed to make full playability. If he would release 10% as many games and analyze each one 10 times more he would be good designer.

Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Feb 25, 2007 01:36 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Hi, Andy. I, too, am skeptical that this game has ever been played; I
seriously doubt it. That's why I didn't rate it in my first comment. Had
I, I would have given it a 'good', because until it's played, a game
cannot really be judged, and to me it looks like it would range from
average to excellent. On play balance: I think Charles is paying great
attention - he doesn't overcrowd the board with pieces like so many big
games. That alone indicates a lot [or that, like me, he couldn't come up
with any more pieces... :-) ] You say: 'Too many piece types and too many
short range mean steep learning curve and long slow game with no sharp
tactics.'  I also agree there are a lot of piece-types, certainly more
than I would normally tend to use. But many of the pieces are forward-only
versions of the standard pieces. Even his odd pawn is a forward-only ferz.
I don't see much learning curve here. Also, I am familiar with shortrange
pieces, and I have to say I think you completely mischaracterize them when
you say they give a 'long slow game with no sharp tactics.' To
demonstrate my position, I would like to offer to play a number of my own
games, all shortrange. Specifically, we could play 2 games each of Great
Shatranj, Grand Shatranj, Lemurian Shatranj, Atlantean Barroom Shatranj,
and Chieftain Chess. In Great Shatranj [8x10], no piece moves more than 2;
in Lemurian [8x8] and Chieftain [12x16], no piece moves more than 3; in
Grand [10x10] and Atlantean [10x10], none more than 4. 
Okay, I'm not completely serious and I'm not really trying to put you on
the spot, I'm just trying to win a point in this discussion. But I do want
to make 2 serious points: that Charles does have a good sense of design, he
just needs to make his games available to be played to refine his designs
and prove it; and that shortrange pieces can easily be as good as
longrange ones. Heck, a CWDA game on a 10x10 with Grand Chess vs Atlantean
Barroom pieces would be a slaughter! ;-)
Enjoy.  Joe
ps: if you wanted to, we could play the games anyway...

Andy wrote on Sun, Feb 25, 2007 02:38 AM UTC:Poor ★
I am skeptical that game has been playtested, and also skeptical that pieces have been chosen for play balance purpose. Too many piece types and too many short range mean steep learning curve and long slow game with no sharp tactics.

Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Feb 24, 2007 07:45 PM UTC:
Nice-looking big game with a wide mix of pieces, most of them short range. It looks to be well-balanced, interesting and fun to play. [That was a hint for a preset.]

8 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.