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: 2005-11-22
 By Larry L. Smith. Politically Correct Chess. Missing description (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jason Smith wrote on 2014-11-16 UTC
I am the author's brother. I would be interested in talking with anyone who knew Larry. I can be found on Facebook @ www.facebook.com/jason.smith.smcd

(zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2012-10-24 UTC
I told someone about this game, I told them the board is 10x10 instead of 8x8, they said the reason for 10x10 board instead of 8x8 is to make it metric (they did not read the text).

Gary Gifford wrote on 2005-12-18 UTC
L.L. Smith (inventor of this game) and I had discussued it via e-mail briefly during its ZRF creation process. I was permitted to play-test it, upon which I generally became confused and lost. I enjoyed reading the rules as they are similar to what could be expected to be found in a Mad Magazine or National Lampoon. I was about to create a piece clarification table for myself (as I've done with Joe Joyce's Grand Shatranj Test) so I could look at the piece image for move reference; but before doing so I found an opening line to draw the ZRF in PCC. I have offered my comments to Larry via e-mail, and from his return e-mails I know he wonders what others think of his highly original game. So if you have time to look it over, I am sure that Larry would greaty appreciate your comments. P.S. I still like his original Sigmun Freud Therapist piece more than the round head with glasses piece, but as Larry pointed out to me, the former would be politically incorrect. In regard to getting confused and losing a game, you may wonder how that is possible. The following partial extract from the actual rules may clarify my brain's dilema, to a small degree: 'A player who has not any non-retired Average Individuals on the field at any time has deferred their victory of the game.' I look forward to other comments and to potential reponses from the game inventor. Best regards to all.

Larry Smith wrote on 2005-12-01 UTC
Made a clarification as to the Social Worker's displacement of an Average Individual. This can result in 'sandwich' displacements if this is the player's Average Individual. I've worked up a Zillions implementation of this game. It is currently in the beta-test stage. I hope to have it available in the next few days.

Larry Smith wrote on 2005-11-22 UTC
All players are permitted to use whatever assistance that they deem necessary.

Made a small adjustment to the phrasing of the re-introduction of the
Designated Individual and the Significant Other. The term 'vacant' is
not applicable in every case. But their adjacency obligations apply
in every case.

Clarified that the leap of the Conflict Arbitrator as to a vacant
cell. Sorry about this oversight, probably thought it was obvious
because of the nature of the piece.

Clarified the re-introduction of 'sandwich' displaced Average Individuals.

Also, those pieces which are allowed to displaced others can do so to
either players' pieces. This is Equal Opportunity. And for this
reason, the 'freezing' of pieces by the Public Housing applies to all
pieces. And pieces which are displaced by the Group Therapist are
allowed to re-introduce on initial positions on either side of the
field.

Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-11-22 UTCGood ★★★★
Plusgoodthinkful, but what about players who are color-perception-challenged? :-)

6 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.