Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I have added an Interactive Diagram to this page. (Thanks to HG)

Thank you very much. I have been able to upload all diagrams and the process was very lean. 

Yesterday, it was my mistake for the size limit. Instead of uploading the jpg diagrams I have made for my own website, I uploaded instead the source images coming from the board painting tool, which are much heavier. Thank you for your help.

I have updated the script to handle resetting a bit more reliably, and I have added reports on how much you have already uploaded the same day. I have also increased the total maximum per day to 2MB, and I have used the actual byte values for the 1MB and 2MB limits instead of using the rounded off base ten figure of 1000000 bytes for 1MB.

Well, it's not quite as bad as never resetting it. My own UploadBytes value is equal to the bytes I uploaded today, and I have uploaded stuff in the past. So, it must have gotten reset. But the reset mechanism might not be perfect.

I see you uploaded four files with a total 609 KB in file size. I downloaded them all, resaved them all to use a number of colors that's adaptive with the pallette, and reduced their total file size to 189 KB. I then uploaded the smaller files. I would recommend doing the same with your remaining files. I used the old program Ultimate Paint for this, which is still my favorite paint program.

However, the value in your UploadBytes column in the database is 1003357 bytes, which is greater than the amount you uploaded. Although I did rewrite this script to use PDO instead of mysql, I didn't write the original script, and I didn't pay too much attention to how it works. It looks like it might be adding to the past UploadBytes value without ever resetting it, which would be very bad. I'm going to take a closer look at it and probably redesign it. In the meantime, I have manually reset your UploadBytes value to zero. So, you can now upload more images.

OK, thank you. I have been able to upload 2 graphics. I was only able to do them one by one, and to enter my password at every upload, sometimes twice. Finally, after only 2 successful uploads, I have reached by upload size limit and I cannot go forward. This is a bit hassling. 

There was a bug in the code, which I corrected. I also added some links for continuing to upload graphics or to work on your page.

I'll work on making the scripts for uploading more user-friendly after breakfast.

Sorry, I have tried but I'm not skilled enough. 1) when I upload a graphic, I choose the file on my HD, then I take "Upload file" (under my User ID/password) and then I get a white screen with only this address:
https://www.chessvariants.com/index/memberupload2.php

And I don't knwo if it was successful or not. I have tried with Safari and Firefox, I get the same result.

2) when I edit the page, I see the code with SRC in HTML and the address to the external page, but what shall I put to make a link to local?

Forgive my ignorance

Wait a minute. I was hitting the "edit" link which is at the bottom of the page, not the one in the black rectangle. I was confused. It is confusing. I try again, sorry.

I don't know how to do it. When I created the page for submission the form/template was asking to a weblink to upload the images. I thought it was what I did, believing it was then uploading the images to a local server, not just taking the link.

Now to modify, if I click on EDIT, I get a form/template  but I cannot make any changes on the content of the page. 

Is there a way for me to edit that page? Thank you

I see you're still using non-local images. Can you upload the images here and change the SRC values in your IMG tags to use the local files?

It seems that the first diagram is missing, showing the line-up before putting the major pieces. If it has been lost, it can be found here: http://history.chess.free.fr/images/zanzibar/zanzibar-XL0.jpg

I added an entry for "threatened" to the glossary and added a link to it to the word "threatened" in the description of the King.

There is much about this discussion that is unfortunate but the solution seems simple.  H.G. wants an additional clarification.  Jean-Louis is concerned that the discussion will reflect badly on the game.  So we add a clarification, delete all the related comments, and everyone's happy.

Sorry, but even if one person doesn't understand it, it is obviously not 'perfect'. If it is clear to you, but not to me, it is not clear. That is what 'clear' means: that everyone should be able to understand it, not just you.

H. G., As far as I can tell, what Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote is perfectly clear. You seem to have a peculiar way of understanding some words. This could be because English is a second language for you, though I think it's more likely that you are just being overly pedantic. I can understand the frustration he feels when you keep telling him that he has made a mistake when in fact he has not. I would really like it if you could be more civil toward people and not drive them off. Jean-Louis Cazaux, in particular, was an editor of this site before I was, and he has a lot to contribute if he sticks around.

I did not correct anything; this is not the Wikipedia, and people cannot edit each other's submissions. I pointed out that the rule description in your article was ambiguous, and why. At that point you could have rephrased that rule to make it unambiguous (like I now have done in the article about Metamachy that I authored, now that I finally understand the rule), and that would have been the end of it. Then you would have had the last word.

But for some reason that escapes me, you did choose not to do that, but instead argue about procedure: people have no right to criticize your submissions, want to have the last word, spoil your fun, make your variant look bad...

Of course that doesn't solve anything; the ambiguos rule description is still in your article. If you think that people will not like your variant when it has ambiguous rules, you have only yourself to blame for it by insisting the description must remain ambiguous. It is not my fault that it is ambiguous, and you should be grateful someone pointed it out, giving you at least an opportunity to fix it. But, as the saying goes, you can leed a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

No I don't believe that you are stupid. You are not at all. But you always want to have the last word and your words are often difficult to swallow. Look here "Authors should not be blind to imperfections in their work, and the normal response would be to repair the defects"
I'm not blind at all and I welcome positive remarks. I have currently people play testing this variant quite intensively and I will take their feedback into account. I know the benefits of peer review as I practice this a lot in my professional life too. But what are the "imperfections" and "defects" you corrected here? We are just talking of something that was not an imperfection but rather something you were not understanding. 
I was happy to post this new game here but now this page is spoiled. A new reader coming here will conclude that this game is flawed and has imperfections. Nice. 
I was happy to come back on CVPs after so many years of absence but every post I've made these last weeks have turned to upsetting feedbacks. I will stop here. I wish you success because these pages in overall are really great and a very valuable source of information for the researchers interested in chess variants like me. 

Well, perhaps I am exceptionally stupid then, because I did not understand it. Criticism is good; it can lead to improvement of the quality of the website. We should do it as much as possible. Authors should not be blind to imperfections in their work, and the normal response would be to repair the defects, rather than complaining about someone noticing them.

What make you think that we would only scrutinize your articles? The article attracted attention because it was newly posted. Not because it was you that posted it. As you can see my freshly posted article about Tengu Dai Shogi gets a lot of criticism.

Peer review works! It is a good way to guarantee quality.

I'm not perfect. I speak French every day, not English, please forgive me if I use '"threatened" instead of I don't know what else. If we start to criticize each other for such things, then let's scrutunize every variant that we give in our chess variants pages and not only mines. I believe everyone has understood what the rules of Metamachy or Zanzibar are with respect to that point. 

About pinning, common sense is to apply the principle which is in the rules of chess, article 3.1 of FIDE laws:

• A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack.

I agree this is the usual terminology ('attacked'/'protected'). In the game description you use the word 'threatened', though, which I now understand means "attacked or protected". I am not sure that is standard terminology (in fact I think the more comon meaning of 'threatened' is "attacked and not (sufficiently) protected or of higher value than the attacker"), and in any case it is rather ambiguous. And it still leaves open the question whether pinned pieces attack or protect anything.

So I think it would be good to add an unambiguous definition of 'threatened', e.g. "when it would not be legal for the King to be left on that square replacing whatever was there before". I have now adapted the phrasing that way in the Metamachy article.

I'm sorry, this thread is becoming very confusing ... and I'm adding confusion, really sorry. I made an awful typo.

HG you say: "No, this is not what Fergus said. He said the King could not go to h3 because h2 was attacked. h3 is not attacked. And what Fergus says contradicts what you say: according to Fergus the black Knight is actually considered to attack the black Bishop, a piece of its own color that he cannot capture. While you said: "Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces..."

Sorry sorry. I made a mistake. This is my correct sentence:

>>As Fergus said, in both cases, the Bishop on h2 being black or white, the King cannot jump on h3 because h2 is a square under threat. 

Sorry, I meant h2 and I don't know why I wrote h3, which is absurd. As I said, I agree with Fergus.

The black Knight "attacks" h2. When a white piece is on h2, the black Knight obviously attacks that white piece. If it is a black piece which is on h2, then that piece is "protected" by the black Knight. You say "attack (by a friend)", I say "protected", this is just a different understanding of "attacking". "To attack" as something aggressive in my language, which is opposite to "to protect", but for the square which is concerned, it is the same.
No more complicated than that. If I define the rule relatively to the square which is or not under threat, I think it is clear. 
 

I don't think that is true. Whether a move that would be a pseudo-legal capture if the target square was occupied by a piece of opposite color is an attack or a protection depends on the color of the occupant of that target square: it would be attack on an enemy, and protection on a friend, irrespective of who has the move.

The interpretation that 'attacks' means "must have a legal capture to that square if it was his turn" is a perfectly reasonable one, that cannot be excluded in absence of an explicit statement defining it differently. In the Xiangqi chasing rule it even means "must have a capture to that square that would be legal if his King was not in check".