The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




[ 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
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2008-03-09
 By Charles  Daniel. Pick the Piece Big Chess. In this customizable game, players decide on the pieces to fill two empty slots and those to be dropped during play. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Paulowich wrote on 2009-12-12 UTC

QUOTING CHARLES DANIEL FROM [2008-04-23] IN THIS THREAD: 'Thanks for the info George, I had no idea that the patent would cover the use of the Bison.'

[1] George Duke has never claimed to be the first person to invent or describe the Bison, a fairy chess piece which, for example, has been used by Sergey Sirotkin on a 7x7 board.

[2] George Duke has never claimed to be the first person to use a (preexistent) fairy chess piece in a new chess variant. In particular, in one played on a board with more than 64 squares.

[3] It is very bad form for George Duke to discourage the use of the Bison in chess variants on this site, by making statements like his [2008-04-22] one here: 'The particular embodiment where both sides use Bison here, one of hundreds, is therefore under coverage of USP5690334.'

I have no formal connection with this chess variant site, except for my participation in the occasional tournament and Chess Variants contest. In the interest of full disclosure, I will mention that I once received a free Omega Chess Set as the prize for third place in that contest. My opinions are my own. - David Paulowich


David Paulowich wrote on 2009-12-12 UTC

QUOTING GARY GIFFORD CONCERNING Falcon and Bison

When you want to use Mr. Duke's wonderful Falcon piece, but are concerned about the patent, you can either:

(a) kindly ask for Mr. Duke's permission

(b) simply use the earlier Bison.

The excellent Bison piece can move twice like a Ferz and then once like a Wazir (or visa versa) in an outward direction from its starting point. And it can jump! (the Falcon can't jump, but can zig-zag around in different ways, to give the appearance of jumping)

Anyway, the Bison is easier to use and would be my preferred piece, of the two.


David Paulowich wrote on 2009-12-12 UTC

QUOTING GEORGE DUKE CONCERNING Falcon Chess: Background and Patent Text Excerpts

USP5690334 is paired Bison on 8x10. Problemists' Bison, used once or twice in 1970's, is incorporated into CV for the first time in history, by law with the sentences, at third from last paragraph written in 1995, ''Another possible embodiment is that in which the falcon has the ability to jump or leap over an intervening piece, as the knight can.'' Bison. Leaping Bison. Leaper to (2,4) and (3,4). Never before done or realized as fitting like a jigsaw puzzle into Rook, Knight, and Bishop. Now to improve Bison further, we ever so slightly weaken her in the embodiment by far preferred. We make her a Darter with three pathways. Bison is the clue, as are the 15 or so compounds of (Knight + Camel) in 'ECV' (1994) and 6 or 8 compounds of (Knight + Zebra) in 'ECV' (1994) and two or three of (N+C+Z), as in 1920's Cavalry Chess by Frank Maus. Please call the patented reacher to the 16 squares beyond the Knight, any of Bison, Falcon, Snake, Phoenix, Spider, Octopus as you will. The patent is methods', for the method, as you would a chemical process, by comparison. Once some particular method of sequencing DNA is described, for one example within ''methods,'' it may not be so hard to duplicate the process, in a good laboratory. After the fact of discovery is much easier. But except for personal and friendly use, individual trial and error, it is the right exclusively of the proprietorship to do it publicly.


George Duke wrote on 2008-05-09 UTC
(It is bad form to Rate one's own article for any reason. That was one small agreement even prolificists had with ordinary CV fans.) The Preset with Falcons is still up at 23.April.2008 Comment and so yesterday's Comment is still relevant -- that by Doctrine Equivalents it falls under the Patent. Daniel means to say ''now-irrelevant'' as if he had removed it already. The Preset is not bothersome and we approved it. That was the point, to keep the Patents and Copyrights tidy. New piece of ('Korean Elephant' + 'Knight') would not be ''multi-path.'' See article ''Multi-path Chess Pieces.'' That piece, taking Daniel's wording for latest Preset, would be instead simple compound. Multi-pathers and compounds are of course worlds apart, as CV analysis has matured. In 22.April.2008 Comment here, as elsewhere, is explanation why Falcon subsumes also-patented-in-effect ''Bison,'' never used in CV before our use in 1992. Bison thus is special-case Falcon for intellectual property purposes. For example, anyone can use Falcon-Bison on 8x8 and in such as Gilman's conceptions with exotics like long-range leapers, including AOF1. Actually in fact, we just as soon Daniel leave the Falcon-PtPBC Preset since having now analyzed the subject a little here. We shall respond to Joyce's Comment of this thread, touching as it does on proliferation and manners, and need to find right place to do so (away from insignificant PtPBC).

Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-05-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Added new preset with dual-path piece combining Korean Chess Elephant + Knight. This piece must slide along a CLEAR path of 1 orthogonal followed by one OR two diagonal outwards.
Please disregard any link to preset in comments section with 'Falcon' piece.
Excellent comment to balance out irrelevant comment regarding patent.

Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-05-09 UTC
As anyone who reads the description of Pick the Big Piece can ascertain, both sides agree on what pieces they choose to play with and what should be dropped. It is suggested that both sides use the 'same armies'. The pieces in the main presets have all been a mix of my pieces and 'open source' pieces. The new preset with 1 Falcon to be dropped for each side was made with understanding that this experimental preset was allowed by the patent owner for the benefit of others as per comment regarding the use of bison (a piece clearly made long before the patent!). It should be quite clear to anyone that this game does NOT depend on this preset. I have absolutely no interest in the Falcon piece nor its patent - only in 'open source' chess pieces. I only hope that the verbiage in patent does not include pieces like Zebra and camel compounds. A simple request to remove the preset would suffice, which is what I shall do.

George Duke wrote on 2008-05-08 UTCPoor ★
This Comment is to tidy up USP5690334 from year 1997 through year 2017. Gilman reminded me by today's Comment at Complete Permutation Chess. Gilman's AOF1 was objectionable for changing the board size on the fly after posting it June 2007, as if poorly thought out. No one claims probably that any AOF is tantamount to Falcon invention [on second thought, still somewhat uncertain, because rereading Comments at AOF year 2007, not sure yet of having nailed down the piece mix]. As Gilman notes, he is welcome to use Falcon even on 8x10, 10x10 with leapers or other exotics, in principle: the claims of the Patent were designed for such experimentation. The 'Poor' here is for the unwanted Preset with two Falcons Daniel puts up 23.April.2008, not for PtPBC itself. When Abdul-Rahman Sabahi made Presets for 'Several FC Presets' in 2007, we were in consultation, unlike Daniel. Though short couple of Falcons, Daniel's Preset is covered by USP5690334 by two legal principles, the simpler one of which is Doctrine of Equivalents. Just Google 'Doctrine Equivalents' for more information. This Comment suffices to indicate that in future such use of 1 or 2 Falcons only on 8x10 and 9x10 and 10x10 and larger is part of the protected Falcon invention. Daniel can keep it with the understanding.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-04-24 UTC
George, one might wonder... I answered your Manners comment before reading your comment here. I trust my reply in Manners and Michael Howe's reply concerning Nova Chess were satisfactory? Some of your other comments might better be addressed in Manners. If you wish, we might take them up there. Your mention that the ninja pawn and some other pieces Charles has included might be interesting. I would argue that's a good reason to post games that may not be entirely original and wildly exciting to everyone. Your final point here, lack of ascription by the newcomers, I believe I began to address in my recent Manners post. That discussion would certainly more appropriately be held there, as it is a general topic, no? Michael, I certainly would look forward to hearing from you again, and believe others would also. We probably aren't going to conquer the world any time soon with our current active numbers though; gotta agree with you there. So? CVs are still an awesome art medium, amazingly plastic and responsive, as well as surprising. And so deliciously mathematical in so many ways. Enjoy!

M. Howe wrote on 2008-04-23 UTC
I still read TCVP sometimes, though am no longer a member and my interest in CVs is gradually waning. I didn't think I would post again, but felt that a response was appropriate here. This is a reasonably fair characterization of what Nova Chess used to be. I was never really able to get it focused and was never satisfied with it, nor do I support the version that still exists on the ZOG website. These days, my thinking about CVs is that if the world needs CVs at all, and there seems to be precious little interest beyond these small circles, it needs fewer of them, not more. And these CVs should be games with clarity, structure, and balance, worthy of repeated play and study, such as Mats Winther's Mastodon/Mammoth Chess, to give one example out of perhaps a few handfuls of games I still value. And for the record, there was no real falling out with TCVP. I simply grew tired of the increasing quantity and decreasing quality of the material, the loss of focus, the animosity and ego that came to dominate the forum. I have not ruled out coming back as a member and putting a small number of well-considered CVs back up, but I don't see that the tide has turned.

George Duke wrote on 2008-04-23 UTC
The classic case of replacement pieces, allowing for players to mix arrays, even differently after Betza's CDA, is Michael Howe's Novo Chess. I believe he had some falling out with CVPage and his material is not appearing now, like Fergus Duniho's. With about 10,000 available pieces around, PtPBC and others preceding it [to be mentioned in follow-up] are extensively expandable and, having been done several times outside Game Courier, unoriginal any more. Facility at making new Chesses -- and new Presets presto chango -- like the ones related to this article, does not mean they should be done, and everyone knows they serve mostly for personal ego-boosting. Michael Howe used to talk about so many millions of arrays being available confusedly: in MH's case he seemed unsure when he was serious or not about Novo. Unfortunately today they are all to be taken seriously, even when completely borrowed and unresearched. PtPBC has little merit in itself as a whole, but does within novel pieces of Daniel's own creation for later. A nearby thread discusses etiquette prompted by completely different exchange. (Mixing threads to go easy on any reader) Actually, what Joyce brings up, addressing contributors impolitely is only one form of discourtesy. It is as rude to discuss one's own CVs all but exclusively and at length, either ignorant or ignoring 15 years of CVPage and also CVs over decades before CVPage existed, not only Pritchard's 'ECV' ones. Another example of intolerance is in assumption that all Chess variate enjoyers have, or must have, the same philosophy of what has been called ''prolicifism.'' This Comment does not yet face favorably interesting Ninja Pawn itself, when it might optimize, and some other novel pieces worth attention, in order to place them somewhat with antecedents (not identities in all cases). Finding the precedents is not so much done lately, not only among Charles Daniel's, but also Joe Joyce's and Gary Gifford's. Courtesy to historic originators before us going back at least to Pietro Carrera in 17th Century starts with acknowledging their existence.

Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-04-23 UTC
Thanks for the info George, I had no idea that the patent would cover the use of the Bison.

The 'other forgotten game' Sorcerer Chess has been revamped to allow for dropping of 1 Stealth Gryphon, 1 Anti-Gryphon and 4 ninja pawns.

George Duke wrote on 2008-04-22 UTC
In another game Charles Daniel notes the identity of ''Conjurer'' and Omega Chess Wizard, respecting the commercial game. USP5690334 in next to last paragraph covers Falcon (8x10, 9x10, 10x10 and larger) moving to (2,4) + (3,4) in its mode ''jumping or leaping over an intervening piece as the Knight can'' as lesser alternative. Normally, Falcon is multi-path slider unlike here. Patented Falcon is first use of mover to those squares in any game, although the compound was named as ''Bison,'' exclusively a leaper, in a 1970's problem, not a CV. Where both sides use Bison, one of hundreds of choices within PTPBC, USP5690334 applies, there being the same orthodox piece mix, generally speaking, with Falcon-Bison. Put simply, any superset such as the Daniel version additionally dropping pieces is included. This comment sufficently notes the welcome experimental noncommercial use of Falcon-Bison on 10x10 with orthodox piece mix (hypothetically if it were ever actually played), in order to protect the proprietorship. The particular embodiment where both sides use Bison here, one of hundreds, is therefore under coverage of USP5690334. As before stated and acted on, anyone can use Falcon on 8x8, as one of Joyce's presets, Forriere's Bifocal, and Aronson's smaller Horus. Other Falcon-Bison uses are Herd (8x8) and Gilman's Great Herd. Thanks all for the sometimes attention to detail.

Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-03-17 UTC
Gary, I just reworded the description for the preset. But my suggestion was the other way around - a war-mace and alfil-Horse-apults. Though I see no reason for it to be the other way around either.. And thanks for your comment, I hope that players realize they have a lot of flexibility in choosing the game they wish to play.

Rich Hutnik wrote on 2008-03-16 UTC
For even wilder play, you can go with the Seirawan (SHarper) method of being able to add a new piece onto the board to back up a piece moving out of the back rank.

Gary Gifford wrote on 2008-03-15 UTC
Charles: This is a nice variant concept that reminds me a little of Chess with Different Armies. It offers a good variety of play.

I do have some simple requests in regard to your interesting Maces and Horse-apults piece set:

a) Please call the Maces in your preset Alfil-Maces or Elephant-Maces. Because they have that added movement and the new name would make that more clear.

b) Please call the Horse-apults in your preset Dabbabah Horse-apults or War Machine Horse-apults. Because of their added movement. Also, in your rules you need to mention that Horse-apults capture 'adjacent pieces by displacement' (as does a King.)

In time I would hope to see new graphic pieces for the Alfil-Mace and the Dabbabah Horse-apult. The new graphics would be a Elephant/Mace combo image and a Dabbabah/Horse-apult combo image.

With the new images we could have games with standard Maces and Horse-apults; and Alfil-Maces and Dabbabah Horse-apults on the same board.

In closing, congratulations on creating the 'Pick the Piece Big Chess.' I look forward to watching some of these in action.


15 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.