[ 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 ]Rated Comments for a Single ItemLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Dragon. Missing description (9x15, Cells: 135) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2007-12-24 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Also, year 1921 science fiction novel ''The Chessmen of Mars'' by Edgar Rice Burroughs interweaves the story and the Rules of chess-form ''Jetan'' within Chapter 2 of the text and an Appendix, the famous two versions of Jetan. USA television series 1966-1969 shows ''Star Trek Chess'' in enough episodes for determining the Tridimensional Chess' Rules. Proto-Chess presented that way shows the author considers the variation important enough to think out symbolism. Presumably David Howe's Nomic Chess allows lots of room for differing interpretation that can be nailed down specifically in a given context or occurrence, almost like role-playing. Feliz Navidad. George Duke wrote on 2007-12-15 UTCGood ★★★★7.7 out of 10. Very complicated and cross-references as 'Fiction'. Nice diagram 'Board and Initial Deployment'. Produced in 2005 the year after Gridlock, we take Dragon here mostly as satire. One giveaway is the number of pieces having ''no power of movement or capture.'' No one outside Gridlock's or Dragon's coterie are likely to play either. With respect for readers' time, Glenn Nicholls has cut Rules-Set articles to the two, TigerChess and Dragon. Anyone interested can easily enough master them, unlike the work of several dozen 'prolificists'. By and large, it is prolificists' bodies of work that remain out of reach by very burden of their being 15 and more separate, undistinguished Rules Sets. As examples: we are still working through potential fourth 'Joyce' CVs to Comment, no small task to do adequately with citations that author always omits. Likewise, we have not yet re-familiarized with the other 25 'Aronsons' (after evaluating Rococo, AntiKing, Horus and Illusionary). Some prolificists have even more than their 'only' 20 or 30 CVs. Staying true-to-form in style and structure, as Gilman remarks, proves nothing but hobgoblin 'consistency'. In general, one interesting, ironic effort like the present Dragon is better than yet another earnest, formulaic new-combination Rules Set. To anyone not self-absorbed in own CVs' sheer numbers, the game Dragon conveys its sense of self-parody, and even spoof, very readily -- without of course trying to comprehend all the embedded Rules and notwithstanding Nicolls' own combative denial of any such intrinsic ambiguity. The remote coherence of Dragon's Rules, obviously intentional, is diverting for a change. Charles Gilman wrote on 2007-12-15 UTCPoor ★Although my eventual rating matched my initial instinct on reading this page, I did take time to try and look at the game in more depth. At one point I wondered whether it was an elaborate spoof of some of the more theme-heavy variants, particularly as I have been accused of the same with Sultan's Elephant Chess - and the article featuring my own Forest and Storm pieces was due to be updated (the latter are now deferred to a later article). Replies to comments, however, showed no hint of a sense of humour, so I had to assume that timing is coincidental and take it seriously. So taking it at face value, I have to say that the variant is so badly presented as to impair playability. On reaching the start of the Pieces section, I found a paragraph for each piece, but these said nothing of its move. Instead they just described the physical and emotional nature of the character represented by the piece. Only after wading through all that, and yet more waffle about alchemic elements, are there any details of how pieces actually move. How unlike my Armies of Faith series, rooted in the four core Occidental pieces, with background to the name (a single-word name in most cases) of each extra piece in a few clearly italicised sentences at the end of the piece paragraph. Dragon may be a playable game but frankly I haven't enough time online to find out. Jared McComb wrote on 2006-09-12 UTCPoor ★Poor in part to counteract the excellent, but mostly because that is my opinion. The game is needlessly complicated and too confusing to learn, and in addition, the page and diagram are just plain ugly. And I believe Andy is correct in saying that Nicholls' arguments are both condescending and outrageous, although I'm not sure that the LoTR series qualifies as 'second-rate.' (I really need to go read 'em...) At the community college that I graduated from, there was a student association called 'Writers' Guild,' where students and faculty could bring things that they had written and get opinions on them. The one major rule there was, after reading something you wrote, you couldn't defend it while other people critiqued - and it WORKED. I believe that this community could almost definitely improve if people here acted by this rule for a while after their articles are posted. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2006-09-11 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I agree that Andy crossed the line of being civil and it seems to me that he is just looking for a flame war. Andy: If you want to flame people, there are many sites which are flamer-friendly. Chessvariants.org isn't one of them. I think the problem is that Andy wasn't fully able to see that he hurt Glenn's feelings when he was critical of his chess variant. It is very hard to be critical of a chess variant; see this discussion where I was critical of a variant. In terms of Dragon, as I said before, I won't play it until a computer implementation is made, and Glenn is currently unwilling to make one. But, yes, I think this kind of Chess + wargame hybrid is a good idea. The rules are a bit complicated for my taste to try and learn this game unassisted, however. Then again, I never played anything more complicated than Axis and Allies without a computer. I'm adding an excellent rating mainly to counterbalance Andy's poor rating. - Sam Andy wrote on 2006-09-08 UTCPoor ★I must agree with AMXRE. Game with rules too complex to let players see changes in situation more than one move ahead is not good game. Game that discourages long-range planning is poor game. It is ridiculous argument that game too complex to play cannot be rated; game that cannot be played is poor because games are meant to be played. AMXRE wrote on 2006-09-07 UTCBelowAverage ★★Idon't mean to BRATE this game, but too many pieces,archery attacks and terrian fretures makes this game unplayable! 7 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.