[ 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 Quang Trung Chess 10th Edition. The 10th edition.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2007-07-31 UTCThe 2nd and 4th editions of his game are still on this website. 'Items Invented by Vu Q Vo' can be found by clicking on his name back on the 'Quang Trung Chess 10th Edition' page. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2007-07-31 UTCLooks like there is still a web archive link to the page, for people who want to look at the rules (click on the hotlink in the last sentence). - Sam Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2007-07-31 UTCThis is too bad. Often creative variant inventors create their own pages and choose to send a link to CVP instead of asking CVP to post their page. Too often, these author pages do not last, resulting in the loss of an interesting variant or collections of variants to the chess variants community. I have seen this many times. I would encourage those that provide links to also post their game descriptions in CVP! David Paulowich wrote on 2007-07-10 UTCBroken link, even the linked diagram on this page no longer functions. Vu Q Vo wrote on 2002-12-03 UTCGood ★★★★Thankyou, Peter Aronson, for your comment. I will clarify the issue when I re-edit my pages. However, I think the 'triton' is not the same as my 'boat'. The triton is a combination piece where as the boat is not. Look at this way: the boat slides, stop, and then move one more into an emty square, reguardless of a capture or not. If you had followed my earlier editions, you would see where all my pieces came from. In the 10th edition, I let the boat move one pace in addition. I have to go. I will add more. Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-12-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★While this certainly looks like an interesting game, I find the statement '<i>Quangtrung Chess (10th edition) is 100% original</i>' a bit curious. If you look at the BCVS (British Chess Variants Society) page <a href='http://www.bcvs.ukf.net/gvcm.htm'>All the King's Men</a>, you see that the Quangtrung <b>Boat</b> is described there as a <b>Sea-Rook</b> or <b>Triton</b>, the Quangtrung <b>Cannon</b> as a <b>Ski-Rook</b> and the Quangtrung <b>Horse</b> as a <b>Moa</b>. And I'm fairly sure that the Quangtrung <b>Infantry</b> shows up in some large Shogi variants. And while the restriction on the 2nd move of a turn capturing is new to <em>me</em>, there are a lot of variations on Balanced Double-Move Chess, and that may not be new, either. <p> And none of that really matters. What makes a game fresh and new is not that the elements in it are new, but that it plays differently than existing games, that the experiance of playing it is in some important way different from playing any existing game. I see the comment: <blockquote><i> 'Every facet of the game is original. I am telling this so everyone will be assured that their time will not be wasted if they decided to learn more about the game.' </i></blockquote> As misguided -- what makes a game worth learning about is not complete novelty, but that it is enjoyable to play. 6 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.