[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Missing the Mark. Making intentional errors. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Now ''Missing the Mark'' is like Neatham's King's Guard in having what would be called an assistor too. Betza's rules here include that, in making the one-square-horizontal allowable systematic mistake in the departure square, there must be ''another piece right beside the one you intend to move'' that is moved in its place. Except that Betza recommends that, oppositely for Black, Black moves the piece itself to the square the Assistor would reach, not the Assistor. [No, on second thought, that would be third option, not used by Betza. Betza's Black is to move (mistakenly) the horizontally-adjacent Assistor (RNBQKP) as the original piece would from ''Assistor'' departure square, not as if from original piece's square; Betza describes it.] We studied this for everyone in the CV's only preceding Comment in 2007 and find the idea to be another Mutator widely applicable. Actually, a White Bishop at g1 can move a Rook (Black or White) at h1 as far as a7, much more than any one-square displacement.
Here White's opening move is '1 B c1-c3 (intend N b1-c3)'. That's legal in Missing the Mark, because the basis is to make moves systematically mistakenly(at option). In the 20-move score, the intended moves are in parentheses. Those intended moves themselves must be completely legal, unlike the 'mistake'. The 'error's' always involving a horizontally adjacent piece has the logic that such 'orderly chaos' really does happen. It could even be an enemy piece that is moved instead in the 'honest, inadvertent'(legal here) slip-up, just so long as, in missing the mark consistently, it always means moving some piece next over in the same rank in the same way. Positively, this method gives the (White) player extra control over a reachable square in a perfectly playable game. Actually, in Missed Mark, each side applies a different systematic displacement to move an adjacent piece at option, Black's different displacement being just as logical and consistently applied. One hates to note that the procedure is a Mutator widely applicable. More recent Switching Chesses are related in a way. Getting used to the method shows this CV just to implement what we can call a 'positional Augmenter', governed by horizontal adjacency, and there becomes no need to dwell on the whole 'Mistake' business from which RBetza got the idea.
2 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.