[ 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 Symmetrical Chess Collection. Collection of several large symmetric chess variants with only line pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joseph Ruhf wrote on 2017-04-11 UTCAverage ★★★Are you talking about victory by "allowing" perpetual flight of the opponent's final Queen? That is not the same as eliminating or subjugating a royal piece, which is the real object of a Chess variant. If it was necessary for that to be ruled a victory condition due to the mix of piece types in play, then the game is not really perfect. Besides this, when any piece may ultimately ascend to royalty, the paradox is then whether the piece type named as "royal" is "really royal". The problem with naming a game which throws up this paradox as a "Chess variant" is that it then has no real royal piece, and Chess is defined as having a set of piece types which are royal and another set which, and any promotion to royalty must be a privileged promotion open only to certain piece types. Once again, if you were so strict about what the rules were to be like that you made yourself need to do this, then the game is not really perfect. In summary, the game, although interesting, is not really perfect nor really a Chess variant. Joseph Ruhf wrote on 2016-10-19 UTCAverage ★★★You have done much excellent work on this game. However, you have evidently missed the point that a game about subjugation or elimination of some royal piece(s) needs said royal piece(s) to be tamed by some form of restricted mobility-whether by design to be range limited or by soft or hard prohibition from seeing its/their opposite(s) along an otherwise open “line” (in Dr. David Li's terminology telepotency)-and also by check if it is a singleton. In your case, telepotency is the only restriction which will allow you to keep with your idea of using only line pieces (I do not dismiss it as entirely uninteresting although I find flawed your reasoning to get to it and disagree with its premises). Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-06-23 UTCExcellent ★★★★★well done, congrats 3 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.